Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IMPROVING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC UPTAKE WITHIN THE MORELAND MUNICIPALITY
Tanishq Bhalla
Alexander MacGrogan
Elizabeth Miller
Nicholas Tosi
2
16 December 2013
Submitted by:
Tanishq Bhalla
Alexander MacGrogan
Elizabeth Miller
Nicholas Tosi
Advised by:
Andrea Bunting, Lead Advisor
Dominic Golding, Co-Advisor
Submitted to:
Bruce Thompson
Major Projects Director
Paul Murfitt
CEO
IMPROVING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAIC UPTAKE WITHIN THE MORELAND MUNICIPALITY
An Interdisciplinary Qualifying Project Submitted to the
Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITITUE in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science
i
Abstract:
The goal of our project was to assist the Moreland Energy Foundation (MEFL) in
expanding the use of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the City of Moreland in north
metropolitan Melbourne by identifying major drivers and barriers that shape the PV market. We
interviewed PV installers and surveyed households to identify what affects consumers’ decisions
to install PV systems. Moreland has the potential to offset most of its residential electricity usage
through PV, but to achieve this potential MEFL and other organizations and agencies need to
develop regulations for landlords to encourage PV installations, educate owners of multi-unit
dwellings about PV options, educate consumers about upfront costs and finance options, and
enhance community engagement through targeted outreach.
ii
Acknowledgements: Our team would like to acknowledge the following individuals for providing support and
assistance throughout the entirety of our project. Without all of you, this project would not have
been possible.
To, our Lead Advisor, Dr. Andrea Bunting: Thank you for providing us with local background on
sustainability and solar PV. Your insight led us down paths to ideas we would not have thought
about otherwise.
To our Co-Advisor, Dominic Golding: Dom, thank you for the undying assistance through the
entirety of this IQP, starting in Worcester. We appreciate all of the time you spent helping us
rework the paper into clear and concise writing.
To the Staff at the Moreland Energy Foundation, Ltd. (MEFL): Your friendliness and wonderful
hospitality has encouraged the development of this project. Your personal expertise within
certain backgrounds allowed for our project to expand in directions never thought possible. We
thoroughly enjoyed coming to work each day and the many times shared with all of you.
To Bruce Thompson, Major Project Director at MEFL: Thank you for setting aside time to
Skype with us before arriving in Australia and during the hectic workdays in Australia. Without
your ideas, this project would not have been possible.
To Paul Murfitt, CEO at MEFL: Thank you for inviting us to MEFL. We have had a wonderful
time working on this project and hope that it provides a start to overcoming the challenges of
promoting solar PV throughout Moreland.
iii
Executive Summary:
To combat climate change and protect against rising electricity prices, consumers are
increasingly interested in renewable energy sources such as solar power. Over the past five years,
Australia has seen rapid uptake of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems: in 2013, roughly
10% of Australian households owned a PV system, compared to 0.2% in 2008 (Vorrath, 2013).
In the city of Moreland, approximately 3,000 out of over 50,000 occupied residential dwellings
(roughly 6%) have PV systems installed. Recently, with the decrease in government incentives,
such as the feed-in tariff, and changes in government policies, the PV market in Australia has
seen a significant decrease in uptake. The goal of our project was to assist the Moreland Energy
Foundation to expand the use of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the City of
Moreland in north metropolitan Melbourne by identifying major drivers and barriers that shape
the PV market. We also calculated the residential PV carrying capacity based on current
technologies.
Methodology:
Our project comprised four main tasks and objectives:
1. We calculated the potential carrying capacity for PV in Moreland using NearmapTM to
assess the physical, residential roof space that could support PV, integrating current
technology and installation guidelines.
2. We identified the key market forces and technical constraints that affect the adoption of
residential PV technologies based on interviews with representatives from four PV
installation companies that operate nationwide.
3. We conducted surveys of 22 homeowners that had previously installed PV systems to
determine the factors that shaped their decision and the obstacles that they overcame.
4. We surveyed 320 homeowners and renters that had not installed PV systems in order to
identify factors that may encourage consumers to install PV systems in the future.
Findings:
We determined that if all occupied residential dwellings had the largest solar PV systems
their roofs could support, Moreland could produce 215.2 GWh of solar-generated electricity per
year and offset 91% of its yearly electricity usage through residential dwellings. Excluding
rented dwellings, heritage overlay, and using a maximum of 5 kW systems per house, Moreland
iv
could produce 126.2 GWh of solar electricity per year, and offset 86% of the consumption of
these dwellings. We estimated the average system size for these dwellings to be 3.20 kW. In
order to realize this potential, however, the City of Moreland will need to overcome a series of
obstacles and capitalise on some of the key drivers that are likely to shape the PV market in the
foreseeable future. We discuss these obstacles and market drivers below from the perspectives
of the installers, homeowners with PV systems already, and households (homeowners and
renters) that do not presently have PV systems installed.
Key Drivers and Barriers from Installers Perspective:
PV installers noted that costs and financing, consumer knowledge, and the split
incentives between landlords and renters are three major barriers in the PV market. Installers also
reported that the three factors driving the uptake of PV are community engagement, referral
programs, and the interest of particular age groups, who are most likely to install PV in the
future. There is a plethora of information, not all of it correct, available on solar panel
installations, pricing, and payment options. This can confuse and overwhelm homeowners,
resulting in many people being misinformed about PV financing options and the return on
investment. Installers generally do not target renters, since they need approval from the landlord
to install PV, and also typically do not stay long enough to receive the benefits. Furthermore,
installers identified retirees and young families as their most prevalent customers and likely
targets for PV uptake. They also informed us that community events and referrals have been
successful in driving uptake of PV.
PV Households’ Perspective:
Surveying homeowners with PV systems led us to identify key factors that motivated
people to install PV systems, particularly environmental consciousness and the desire for self-
sufficiency. We discovered that multi-unit dwellings, including apartment blocks, can have PV
systems installed on their roofs as long as they get majority approval from the Owners’
Corporation and split up the roof space above their unit evenly among all dwelling. PV
homeowners also reinforced the finding from the installers that the upfront cost is a main barrier
and that many people are misinformed or uninformed about financing options.
v
Non-PV Households’ Perspective:
In our survey of non-PV households, we investigated the main drivers and barriers for
installing PV, and analysed whether responses differed according to demographic details. We
separately considered seven demographic categories (income, mortgage, parenthood,
homeownership, age, education, and length of homeownership) by dividing participants into two
groups for each category. We then analysed if the responses of the two groups differed. Our
results supported findings from the parts of our study that upfront cost was the key barrier for
people installing PV. Our responses, however, were not consistent with other recent literature on
the primary reasons for installation. While previous studies indicated that people are most
incentivised to install for energy bill savings, our results showed an inclination to reduce
personal greenhouse gas emissions. We found few statistically significant differences among
different demographic views. However, we found that renters are more receptive than
homeowners to case studies on installation. This information aided in the development of
specific recommendations for MEFL.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Based on our findings, we make six recommendations in five areas: appealing to
landlords, spreading awareness of the suitability of multi-unit dwellings for PV installations,
increasing awareness of financing options, overcoming the consumer knowledge barrier, and
promoting community engagement effectively.
Regulatory Barrier on Rented Dwellings
Recommendation #1. We recommend MEFL to educate landlords on how they can benefit
economically from installing a PV system on their dwelling. If the landlord purchases a
system, they could increase their rent by justifying that the tenant will recoup the difference
through savings in their energy bills.
Currently, there is no mandatory disclosure of energy ratings for rental properties,
preventing landlords from being publically acknowledged for increasing the energy performance
of their rental property, which makes it harder for them to increase rents. This needs to be
overcome in order for the landlord to fully benefit from the capital costs of such upgrades.
vi
Multi-Unit Dwellings
Recommendation #2. We recommend that MEFL educates Owners’ Corporations of multi-
unit dwellings to improve understanding of the process and feasibility of installing solar PV. We
recommend that they primarily focus on smaller apartment dwellings. The main difference in the
process when compared to installing on a fully detached dwelling is that the owner must get
majority approval from the Owners’ Corporation. Additionally, the owner must accept
responsibility for any damages done to the roof by the system, or pay to remove the system if
this later becomes necessary.
Financial Barrier
Recommendation #3. We recommend MEFL to educate individuals on the various payment
options available for solar PV.
We suggest that MEFL further emphasizes the education of communities with higher
percentages of people with mortgages, because our survey results indicate that people with
mortgages are significantly more likely than people without mortgages to lack sufficient
information on the various financial options.
We suggest that MEFL educates communities on the financial options in areas with
more schools, since our data indicates that parents are significantly more likely than non-parents
to have initial cost as the greatest reason discouraging them from installing solar PV.
Consumer Knowledge Barrier
Recommendation #4: We recommend that MEFL creates an interactive webpage showing
potential savings a homeowner can make through purchasing PV.
This tool could also be used to determine an appropriate sized system and would
incorporate financing options, incentives, and current cost of electricity, in order to improve
financial awareness.
Community Engagement
Recommendation #5: We recommend that MEFL promotes PV adoption to older individuals
who do not have a mortgage through word-of-mouth recommendations and marketing.
Since these individuals are older, they may be less tech-savvy than younger members of
the community. Because of this, they may be more likely to prefer word-of-mouth
vii
recommendations instead of utilising case studies or other information about PV that can be
found on the Internet. These individuals are likely to already trust family and friends, indicating
that community events where PV homeowners provide personal testimonials about uptake
to their neighbours and friends could be a viable way to increase the potential for PV adoption
to older individuals who are not paying a mortgage.
Recommendation #6: We recommend that MEFL hosts family-friendly community events to
promote PV uptake to younger families.
A way to outreach to young families is through school fundraisers. These fundraisers
could help raise money to put PV on schools while also offering incentives to the homeowners
of the children attending these schools. By promoting solar PV to young families, children
will also be exposed to pro-environmental behaviours, which could be beneficial to the future
PV market as the children grow into independent adults and future homeowners.
viii
Authorship:
Section Primary
Author
Secondary
Author
Primary
Editor
Secondary
Editor
Abstract NT EM AM TB
Acknowledgments EM NT
Authorship EM TB ALL
Chapter 1: Introduction ALL AM TB
Chapter 2: Literature Review ALL ALL
2.1 History of PV NT TB AM
2.2 Government Programs
Incentives
TB AM NT
2.3 Socio-Demographic Drivers EM AM TB NT
Chapter 3: Methodology ALL ALL
3.1: Objective 1 AM EM TB EM
3.2: Objective 2 EM NT AM
3.3: Objective 3 NT TB TB NT
3.4: Objective 4 TB NT AM TB
3.5: Objective 5 TB ALL
Chapter 4: Findings ALL ALL
4.1: Carrying Capacity Results EM TB TB
4.2: Installer Perspectives EM AM NT
4.3: PV Homeowners TB AM
4.4: Non-PV Homeowners NT TB TB
Chapter 5: Conclusions &
Recommendations
TB NT EM
5.1: Rental Regulations TB AM NT EM
5.2: Unit-Type Dwellings TB NT EM
5.3: Financial Barrier TB NT EM
5.4: Knowledge Barrier EM TB NT EM
5.5: Community Engagement TB EM NT EM
5.6: Future Work EM TB TB
References NT EM
Appendices ALL
Formatting NT
ix
Contents: Abstract: .................................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements: ............................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary: .............................................................................................................................iii
Authorship: .........................................................................................................................................viii
Contents: ............................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures: ..................................................................................................................................... xii
List of Tables: .....................................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 History of PV ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 The Origins of PV ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Recent PV Market Trends ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Australian PV Market ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Government Programs and Incentives ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Feed-in Tariffs .......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 International PV Markets ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Socio-Demographic Drivers for Residential Investment in PV Systems ...................................... 14
2.3.1 Pro-environmental Behaviours Relevant to Solar PV .................................................................. 15
2.3.2 Technology Adoption Life Cycle ....................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Internal Drivers, Consumer Attitudes, Socio-Demographics and their Effects on the PV
Market ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.3.4 External Drivers in the PV Market: Decision-Making, Peer Effects, and Visibility .......... 22
2.3.5 Australian Socio-Demographics and Motivation for Solar PV Uptake .................................. 22
2.3.6 Marketing Strategies to Promote PV Installation .......................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Objective 1: Estimated the potential Carrying Capacity for Moreland .......................................... 25
3.1.1 Measured Roofs within Three Selected Postcodes in Moreland Using Nearmap™........... 25
3.1.2 Calculated the Carrying Capacity within Three Sampled Postcodes and for entirety of
Moreland ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Objective 2: Determined key market forces and technical constraints affecting the adoption of
PV ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.1 Interview Instrument Development ................................................................................................... 30
x
3.2.2 Interview Sample and Recruitment.................................................................................................... 30
3.2.3 Interview Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.4 Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 31
3.3 Objective 3: Identify and survey households with PV installations to determine what factors
influenced their decision to install a PV system and the barriers they overcame ....................... 32
3.3.1 Survey Instrument Development: ....................................................................................................... 32
3.3.2 Survey Sample and Recruitment: ....................................................................................................... 33
3.3.3 Survey Implementation: ........................................................................................................................ 34
3.3.4 Data Entry and Analysis: ...................................................................................................................... 35
3.4 Objective 4: Survey MEFL and Zero Carbon Moreland members within the local community
to identify potential influencing factors for installing a PV system................................................ 35
3.4.1 Survey Instrument Development: ....................................................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Survey Sample and Recruitment: ....................................................................................................... 36
3.4.3 Survey Implementation & Data Analysis: ....................................................................................... 37
3.5 Objective 5: Provide recommendations and strategies to MEFL to promote future expansion
in Moreland ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Carrying Capacity Calculations ................................................................................................................. 39
4.1.1 Realistic Calculation with Restrictions ............................................................................................. 39
4.2 Installer Perspectives on Key Drivers and Barriers ............................................................................. 41
4.2.1 Price and Financing Barrier ................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.2 Consumer Knowledge Barrier ............................................................................................................. 42
4.2.3 Regulatory Barriers on Rented Dwellings ....................................................................................... 42
4.2.4 Target Age Groups: Retirees and Young Families ....................................................................... 43
4.2.5 Driving the Market through Community Engagement and Referrals ..................................... 44
4.3 Understanding the PV Homeowner Perspective: Motivations and Challenges behind
Investment ........................................................................................................................................................ 45
4.3.1 Results Summary..................................................................................................................................... 45
4.3.2 Challenges to Installation ..................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.3 Perspective of Installation on Multi-Unit Dwellings .................................................................... 48
4.4 Critical Reasons why Non-PV homeowners have not invested ....................................................... 49
4.4.1 Analytical Strategy: ................................................................................................................................ 49
4.4.2 Primary Reason for not Pursuing PV Installation: ........................................................................ 50
4.4.3 Preferred Payment Option .................................................................................................................... 52
xi
4.4.4 Perception of Cost: ................................................................................................................................. 53
4.4.5 Greatest Gain from Owning a PV System ....................................................................................... 54
4.4.6 Preferred Source of Information ......................................................................................................... 55
4.4.7 Comparisons to Previous Studies: ...................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 5: Conclusions & Recommendations................................................................................. 58
5.1 Regulatory Barrier on Rented Dwellings ................................................................................................ 58
5.2 Multi-Unit Dwellings .................................................................................................................................... 59
5.3 Financial Barrier ............................................................................................................................................. 59
5.4 Consumer Knowledge Barrier .................................................................................................................... 60
5.5 Community Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 61
5.6 Limitations of Our Study, Potential Uses of the Recommendations, and Areas for Future
Expansion ......................................................................................................................................................... 62
5.6.1 Limitations of Our Study: ..................................................................................................................... 62
5.6.2 Use of Our Recommendations: ........................................................................................................... 63
5.6.3 Areas for Future Expansion: ................................................................................................................ 63
References ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Appendix 1: Sponsor Description………………………………………………………...…………..68
Appendix 2: Installer Interview Supporting Documents ..................................................................... 73
Appendix 3: Email to MEFL AGM Contacts ...................................................................................... 77
Appendix 4: Email to “Pub Night” Contacts ....................................................................................... 78
Appendix 5: PV Homeowner Questions .............................................................................................. 79
Appendix 6: PV Homeowner Data Collection Sheet ........................................................................... 80
Appendix 7: Map of PV Households for Door-to-Door Surveying ..................................................... 81
Appendix 8: Email to Positive Charge Members with PV systems ..................................................... 82
Appendix 9: PV Homeowner Preamble ............................................................................................... 83
Appendix 10: Letter to Absentee Homeowners ................................................................................... 84
Appendix 11: Socio-Demographics Chart ........................................................................................... 85
Appendix 12: Online Survey of Households without Solar Power Systems ....................................... 86
Appendix 13: Email to MEFL/ZCM Subscribers for Non-PV Household Survey ............................. 91
Appendix 14: Mapping Calculations ................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 15: Example Demographic Tabulation ............................................................................... 96
Appendix 16: Tabulated Online Survey Results .................................................................................. 97
xii
List of Figures:
Figure 1. Installed PV Capacity in Europe ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. PV Production from 2000 to 2010. ................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. PV System Sales Price. ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Installations and Average kW Capacity .......................................................................... 6
Figure 5. 2012 Global Average PV Installation Cost (Parkinson, 2013). ...................................... 7
Figure 6: Weekly Installation of Solar PV systems under Small-scale Renewable Energy
Schemes .............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 7. Four Stages of PV Market Development. ..................................................................... 12
Figure 8. Side-by-side comparison of Melbourne PV uptake in December 2011 and August
2013................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9. Primary Motivation for Installing Solar PV Systems. .................................................. 23
Figure 10. Key Technology Attributes, Proportion of Choices as Most Important. .................... 23
Figure 11. Example of measurements on a typical rooftop in Moreland. .................................... 27
Figure 12. PV Homeowner Respondents Categorized by Age .................................................... 45
Figure 13. PV Homeowner Respondents Categorized by Income Bracket.................................. 46
Figure 14. Biggest Motivation/Greatest Satisfaction Responses from PV Homeownership ....... 47
Figure 15. Factors Most Likely to Discourage Installation .......................................................... 51
Figure 16. Preferred Payment Options ......................................................................................... 52
Figure 17. Perception of PV System Cost .................................................................................... 54
Figure 18. Greatest Gain from Owning a System ........................................................................ 55
Figure 19. Most Preferred Information Sources on PV Installation ............................................. 55
Figure 20. Comparison between Literature and Our Results ....................................................... 57
Figure 21. MEFL Hierarchy of Organisational Bodies. ............................................................... 71
Figure 22. Map of Moreland and surrounding areas .................................................................... 72
Figure 23. Nearmap image of Pascoe Value Homes with Solar Panels Installed ........................ 81
xiii
List of Tables:
Table 1. Various Feed-in Tariffs in Victoria. ............................................................................... 11
Table 2. Summary of Classifications within the Technology Adoption Life Cycle, Modified.. .. 17
Table 3. Variables effecting PV Uptake. ...................................................................................... 19
Table 4. Brunswick Conversion Ratios for peak sun hours times derating factor ........................ 29
Table 5. Summary of Installer Interviewees and Companies ....................................................... 31
Table 6. Responses from Door-to-Door Surveying ...................................................................... 35
Table 7. Response Rates for Online Survey ................................................................................. 37
Table 8. Carrying Capacity Results (No Restrictions) for Three Sample Postcodes and Entirety of
Moreland ........................................................................................................................... 39
Table 9. Carrying Capacity Results (With Restrictions) for Three Sample Postcodes and Entirety
of Moreland ....................................................................................................................... 40
Table 10. Key Drivers and Barriers from Installer Interviews. .................................................... 41
Table 11. Membership Options .................................................................................................... 69
Table 12. Installer Interview Questions Sorted by Most Applicable Question to Respective
Interviewee and Category ................................................................................................. 76
Table 13. Brunswick Carrying Capacity Calculation Results ...................................................... 92
Table 14. Pascoe Vale Carrying Capacity Calculation Results .................................................... 93
Table 15. Fawkner Carrying Capacity Calculation Results .......................................................... 93
Table 16. Moreland Census Data Used to Weight Data from Each Postcode .............................. 93
Table 17. Moreland Full Carrying Capacity Results .................................................................... 94
Table 18. Moreland Dwellings Breakdown by Postcode and Results of Verification Tests ........ 95
Table 19. Tabulation of Main Reason for not Installing vs. Income Comparison ........................ 96
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Increasing awareness of climate change and the adverse impacts of fossil fuel combustion is
driving the effort to develop reliable sources of renewable energy. Solar photovoltaic (PV) has the
potential to play a major role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels by catalysing the overall transition
to renewable energy. Past government incentives, in conjunction with high feed-in tariffs,
encouraged a substantial increase in the adoption of PV systems in Australia within recent years.
Additionally, energy retail prices have increased, on average, by 40% from 2009 to 2012, providing
another reason for desired independence from electricity bills (DRET, 2012). According to the Clean
Energy Council CEO, David Green, the number of PV installations has increased 50 fold since 2008
with PV systems now installed in over one million homes across Australia, as compared to
approximately 20,000 in 2008 (Bretherton, 2013; Vorrath, 2013). From November 2009 to the end of
2011, a high feed-in tariff in Victoria, which paid consumers $0.60/kWh for the electricity their
system put into the grid, was driving the market along with the decreasing prices of solar PV
systems. However, in January 2013 the feed-in tariff was reduced significantly to $0.08/kWh and
others government incentives including the solar credit multipliers were withdrawn in Victoria
throughout the year. Without the previous incentives in place, there exists a new challenge to
continue improvements to sustainability and to encourage the continued adoption of PV systems.
The Moreland Energy Foundation, Ltd (MEFL) has been promoting sustainable energy at the
community level since 2000. Since the overall rate of uptake has declined in recent months, MEFL
established a subsidiary, Positive Charge, which is particularly interested in knowing the most
effective methods to promote PV uptake in Moreland. Given the current situation of the PV market,
our goal is to identify the most effective methods to encourage more households in Moreland to
install PV systems.
In order to formulate recommendations and gain an understanding of the potential consumers
within Moreland, we identified the drivers and barriers to installing residential PV systems. To do so,
we reviewed previous studies and analysed information gathered from the perspectives of PV
installers, in addition to both PV and non-PV households. We conducted various interviews and
surveys to obtain these perspectives and supplemented this data with calculations of physical roof
space to obtain the carrying capacity of solar power and potential yearly electricity production in
Moreland. Lastly, based on our findings, we have provided recommendations to MEFL as to how to
implement programs which would complement the drivers of the PV market and help overcome its
barriers.
2
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have become increasingly popular worldwide as prices
have continued to fall and concerns about climate change and the other adverse effects of fossil
fuel combustion have grown. In Australia, an estimated one million households have taken
advantage of installing PV systems in the past decade. Unfortunately, the decrease in
government incentives has caused a sudden and recent drop in the number of purchases.
Understanding the history of the PV market and the impacts of governmental policies, incentives
and regulations, along with other key social drivers will lead to a more informed decision about
how to target the second million investors in solar PV systems in Australia.
2.1 History of PV
2.1.1 The Origins of PV
Charles Fritts invented the first primitive solar cell in 1833, but it was not until after the
Second World War that Bell Laboratories' scientists developed the first PV cell to produce a
substantial amount of electric power (Jones & Bouamane, 2012). The World Symposium on
Applied Solar Energy displayed Bell's PV cell to representatives of 37 countries in 1955. Later
that year, The New York Times released an article stating that PV would lead "to the realization
of one of mankind's most cherished dreams - the harnessing of the almost limitless energy of the
sun" (Jones & Bouamane, 2012). Arguably, this dream is still to be realised.
The United States and Soviet Union held the initial markets of PV systems during their
space race in the 1960s. Due to the high production and maintenance costs of PVs, the public
market remained very small and NASA was the primary target for sales and development (Jones
& Bouamane, 2012). A major drawback throughout the space race was the limited power
efficiency of the prototype PV systems (Tyagi, Rahim, Rahim, & Selvaraj, 2013).
The oil crises of the 1970s stimulated a second phase in the development of PV systems,
turning attention from satellites and rockets to on-ground applications, and funded primarily by
major oil and gas companies (Platzer, 2013). Within the United States, the Carter Administration
introduced the Energy Tax Act (ETA) in 1978, which provided tax credit incentives for
consumers who purchased solar. (Platzer, 2013).
The development of PV technologies in Japan and Europe focused more on building a
commercial PV industry in the 1970s. Such initiatives resulted in the 1974 development of
3
Project Sunshine to explore alternative energy options in Japan as well as the first formal
renewable energy program within Europe. This program, established in Germany, grew from 10
million EUR to 60 million EUR over the course of four years (Jones & Bouamane, 2012).
The world PV market fluctuated substantially from the 1980s through early 2000. Ronald
Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, which reduced the Investment Tax Credit to 10% from 30%,
combined with the substantial drop in petroleum prices, hindered the development of the PV
market in the US until 2005 (Jones & Bouamane, 2012). Meanwhile, the PV market in Europe
and Japan remained relatively strong, and even expanded under government incentives.
European and Japanese governments "engaged in massive programs to subsidize rooftop PV
systems... [.] [By] 1988 [Japanese and European] firms dominated PV production" (Jones &
Bouamane, 2012). For example, Germany launched a program in 1990, installing approximately
2,250 PV systems on roofs, with 70% of installation fees funded by the government. Building on
Germany's success, Japan launched its Seventy Thousand Roofs Program, providing one-third
the installation price and requiring local electric companies to purchase the surplus energy
generated. By the year 2000, Japan had installed over 50,000 rooftop PV systems (Jones &
Bouamane, 2012). The expansion of Japanese production and success throughout Europe in
rooftop PV installation encouraged other countries to adopt similar policies.
2.1.2 Recent PV Market Trends
In the early 2000s, the PV market entered a new generation of growth attributed to
"technological improvement, cost reductions in materials and government support for renewable
energy" (Tyagi et al., 2013). Spain, Italy, and France followed the example set by Germany’s
Renewable Energy Sources Act and the installed capacity of PV in Europe grew exponentially
(refer to Figure 1). To meet this growing demand, worldwide PV production increased by 40% to
90% per year (refer to Figure 2), and China became the dominant producer (Tyagi et al., 2013).
4
Figure 1. Installed PV Capacity in Europe. (Tyagi et al., 2013).
Figure 2. PV Production from 2000 to 2010. (Tyagi et al., 2013).
With government support and incentives, PV installation has also grown in India,
Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand (Tyagi et al., 2013). India's recent PV installation
expansion has led to a national effort for implementation of 500 GW of solar panels by 2013.
They plan to accomplish this goal, in part, by placing PV systems in distant communities to
minimize transmission losses associated with distribution from more distant electrical stations
(Tyagi et al., 2013).
5
As PV production has increased, prices per kW capacity have declined and government
incentives have reduced. For example, in Germany alone, the fixed rate that power companies
purchased solar energy from producers was reduced by 30% in 2012, leading major
manufacturers such as Solon, Solar Millennium, and Q-Cells to go bankrupt in quick succession
(Jones & Bouamane, 2012).
Fortunately for the consumer, PV system prices have fallen substantially since 2008
(refer to Figure 3) and PVs with an operating efficiency near 28% are now extremely affordable
(Tyagi et al., 2013). With the decline in system costs, Germany, Italy, and the United States have
dramatically curtailed government incentives for PV installations (Tyagi et al., 2013).
Figure 3. PV System Sales Price. (Feldman et al., 2012).
As the PV market expands, variety and style of PV options have grown as well. Building-
integrated and building-applied PV systems are of growing interest because they offer aesthetic
benefits, flexibility in installation, and reduced costs compared with standard rooftop systems.
This offers a solution to physical constraints of particular roofs, such as tin roofs or roofs without
proper support to withstand a system. Solar tiles and shingles are much easier to install and blend
into the original housing style, improving PV installation companies’ ability to expand
("Building Integrated Photovoltaics," 2010). As sustainability groups strive to improve
alternative energy adoption, PV alternatives to roof-integrated systems may lead to the next
generation of expansion.
6
2.1.3 Australian PV Market
The Australian PV consumer market has grown substantially in recent years, initially
driven by government programs and incentives but more recently by the decline in capital costs.
By June of 2013, 1,054,156 small-scale, domestic PV systems had been installed throughout
Australia (Noone, 2013). Nearly one out of ten households have ‘gone solar’ in Australia, as
compared to one out of fifty, only two years ago (Thompson, 2013). The major growth of the
market began during 2010, peaking in Quarter 1 of 2011 and Quarter 2 of 2012, due to changes
in government incentive programs, with a drastic drop in recent months (refer to Figure 4).
Figure 4. Installations and Average kW Capacity. (Richetin et al., 2012).
The influx of cheap PV systems in recent months may be contributing to a decline in
consumer confidence and desire to purchase. That being said, Australia offers lower installation
costs than in the US, Japan, and France (refer to Figure 5) (Parkinson, 2013).
7
Figure 5. 2012 Global Average PV Installation Cost (Parkinson, 2013).
Recently, consumers and analysts have begun to worry that systems are experiencing
failures, much earlier than their rated lifetime (Peacock, 2013). The Australian Photovoltaic
Association (APVA) has begun to address this issue, but recognizes that few data are available
on collective public experiences and opinion. In association with numerous other sustainability
organizations, they have begun the three-year project called Climate Based PV System
Performance & Reliability Project. The primary goal is to gather information pertaining to
quality problems and product life of PV systems (Pulsford, 2012). This study may reveal a
change in the public’s opinion of PV as a whole, as well as declining confidence in PV as a
worthwhile investment.
To combat these growing problems, community groups such as MEFL, and their Positive
Charge Initiative 1 in particular, aim to end the “boom and bust” cycle (refer to Figure 6) and
stabilize the PV market as soon as possible by promoting consistent growth and technical
standards. Their primary goal as a community-based organization is “to make it easier for
households and businesses across Victoria [to] take practical and effective actions” to act
sustainably (Thompson, 2013). Building on recent success, their new plan is to extend their reach
beyond the Moreland community throughout Victoria and engage with 40,000 households in
upcoming years to directly link households to their range of products, service, and support
(Thompson, 2013).
1 The Positive Charge Initiative is a subsidiary of MEFL that offers sustainable energy answers for homes and businesses.
8
Figure 6: Weekly Installation of Solar PV systems under Small-scale Renewable Energy
Schemes. (MEFL, 2013)
In 2012, MEFL managed the Delivering Clean Energy Solutions (DCES) project in
conjunction with the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (NAGA)2 to design a business
strategy, which coordinated bulk buying of clean energy technology. Such technology included
solar electricity systems, solar hot water systems, and electric bicycles. The primary objectives of
DCES were to increase the consumption of clean and energy efficient products across NAGA
and establish a ‘self-funding’ business model for future use and development (Moreland Energy
Foundation [MEFL], 2012b).
Their business model was designed for community engagement through information
sessions and local festivals to provide the necessary information for uptake of the technology.
Marketing in Moreland, with its diverse demographics and housing styles, requires a wide range
of products to accommodate all levels of interest and economic feasibility. In order to engage the
community, information provided about products must be “simple, easy to understand, and
persuasive” (MEFL, 2012b). MEFL found that website postings and regular emails were the
most effective forms of communication to engage the entire community. The study found that
the primary barriers for PV uptake were lack of confidence when working with suppliers, lack of
2 NAGA is a network consisting of nine city councils and MEFL in order to share information and coordinate sustainable, local actions for emission reduction.
9
information pertaining to the supplying company, confusion about government incentive
programs, and the overall cost of installation (MEFL, 2012a). Throughout the study,
uncontrollable factors such as the suppliers’ inability to manage high demand, government
policy changes, and landlord-tenant relations deterred installation (MEFL, 2012a). As a whole,
DCES was effective in terms of improving PV uptake, but it was also able to provide key
findings pertaining to market barriers and solutions to overcome them.
In addition to internal reviews of the business model, Positive Charge administered
online surveys to evaluate the overall customer experience when referred to PV installers. One
survey, conducted in June 2013, was sent to approximately one hundred members, with twenty-
one respondents. When asked why they utilised Positive Charge’s PV services and pursued the
installation of a PV system, the three most common responses were that the Positive Charge
services were easy to use, the program was supported by Moreland Council, and Positive Charge
is an independent, not-for-profit organisation. In contrast, the major reasons given for not
pursuing an installation were that respondents received no response from the installers they
contacted, did not own their dwelling, or were prevented by council regulations, such as a
heritage overlay (Positive Charge, 2013b).
Businesses such as Sungevity and Energy Matters have introduced “pay-as-you-go”
financing options in order to help consumers overcome the barrier of upfront cost of PV
installation. This payment option may be preferred by some consumers, particularly those with
lower income or more assets they are paying, because it avoids having to pay capital and
installation costs up-front in one large sum (Energy, 2013; Sungevity, 2013). This option allows
for investment in a reliable asset that will, over time, return the initial investment and save
money on electricity bills.
As illustrated, government policies and programs have played a key role in the
development of the PV in different countries. As the PV market continues to mature and prices
of high quality systems decrease, government incentives will likely play a smaller role, but it is
clear that the market is not yet self-sustaining, and it is likely that programs and incentives will
remain important market drivers for the foreseeable future. In the next section, we examine the
role of particular government policies in more detail.
10
2.2 Government Programs and Incentives
Government programs, regulations, and incentives play a critical role in the growth of PV
markets in various countries. There are three different types of incentives used in Australia to
promote this market: feed-in tariffs, Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, and various rebate
programs.
2.2.1 Feed-in Tariffs
The major incentive in European countries is the utilisation of feed-in tariffs to provide
planning security to consumers (Sandeman, 2010). Various other rebate programs on the upfront
cost of PV are used throughout the world, although many of these have expired or reached their
funding limit (Platzer, 2013). With an uncertain future in terms of funding and incentives, the PV
industry in numerous countries (including Germany, the United States, and Australia) is looking
to other means to attract consumers to the PV market.
Zahedi (2010) claims that feed-in tariffs in Australia have been “one of the most effective
ways to encourage residential sector[s] and small businesses to install solar PV technology.”
Feed-in tariffs provide the consumer a price for the electricity their PV system gives back to the
grid. There are two different metering methods for tariffs: net and gross. In net metering, you are
paid for any surplus power that you feed into a grid, instantaneously, for which you receive
payment by a credit on your bill or a cheque once a year, depending on the retailer. Gross
metering is when generation and consumption are viewed independent of each other; you are
paid for all of the energy your system generates and charged for all of the energy you consume.
New South Wales, the Northern Territory, and ACT have a gross feed-in tariff, while the other
states and territories in Australia have a net tariff. Feed-in tariffs were introduced in Victoria in
late 2009 with the net Premium feed-in tariff at a rate of $0.60/kWh. Over the past several years,
different tariffs have been introduced and the values of the tariffs have diminished (refer to Table
1). Homeowners that signed into a tariff still remain eligible for that rate until 2024 for the
Premium and 2016 for the others, but new PV homeowners are only eligible for the energy
retailer funded rate of $0.08/kWh. The cost of electricity to homeowners currently is $0.25/kWh
in Victoria. There is a large gap between the cost of electricity and the feed-in tariff, making PV
adoption less attractive because the consumers are not being paid the value of electricity. With
the reduction in the tariff, it has become more cost effective to size your system such that it
matches your demand.
11
Name of Tariff Rate of Tariff Date Closed Program Duration
Premium $0.60/kWh Dec 29th, 2011 Until 2024
Transitional $0.25/kWh Dec 31st, 2012 Until end of 2016
Standard Same as price you
buy on energy plan
Dec 31st, 2012 Until end of 2016
Current $0.08/kWh N/A N/A
Table 1. Various Feed-in Tariffs in Victoria. (Department of State Development Business and
Innovation, 2013).
Feed-in tariffs in Germany vary from other countries in the method of payment due to
their use of the Shared Burden Principle, where local grid operators can transfer the cost of their
payments to the next higher grid level. This helps balance the costs from feed-in tariffs
throughout the region since each provider will have similar costs and there will be less of a
burden on an individual provider. This prevents a stop-and-go policy caused by budget
constraints since costs are more evenly distributed to each provider (Lüthi, 2010). These tariffs
are also guaranteed for 20 years, giving the consumers a sense of planning security. There is an
annual reduction in feed-in tariffs between 8% and 10% which helps exert cost pressure on
manufacturers, giving them an incentive for technological development. (Post, 2012).
2.2.2 International PV Markets
Japan and Germany have been dominant manufacturers and consumers in the PV market
since their initial stages due to government regulations. Both countries have now reached their
‘take-off phase’ (refer to Figure 7) and have a profitable PV installation industry (Lüthi, 2010).
With the help of government programs and incentives, Germany has successfully transitioned
through the first three out of the four stages of PV market development and has become home to
almost a third of the solar modules in the world (Grigoleit, 2013) (refer to Figure 7). In their PV
market’s early growth in 2000, Germany’s government created the Renewable Energy Sources
Act (EEG), which set a clear goal for the expansion of renewable energy sources, primarily
through guaranteed feed-in tariffs.
Japan is also in the later stages of PV market development. Japan’s research and
development in PV took off dramatically after 1980. Based on extensive market analysis, the
Japanese government decided to continue with the expansion of the PV market through various
programs in the 1990s, including the “New Sunshine Program” and “70,000 Roofs” (Mortarino
& Guidolin, 2010). Given the duration of the policies in Germany and Japan, many of them have
12
reached, or are close to reaching, their funding capacity. Due to this and other recent policy
actions by these governments, energy consumers can expect smaller incentives to install solar PV
in the future. Consequently, it is uncertain whether these markets will experience continued
growth or have reached saturation (Platzer, 2013).
Figure 7. Four Stages of PV Market Development (Lüthi, 2010).
Similarly, the United States’ PV market faces uncertainty because funding for various
programs has terminated or will terminate in the coming years. Renewable energy manufacturers
previously benefited from the Manufacturing Tax Credit (MTC), but its funding cap was reached
in 2010. For investors, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides a 30% tax credit as a financial
incentive for commercial and residential investments. Because this policy is due to expire at the
end of 2016, commercial investments will be given an incentive of only 10%, without a rate for
residential investments if the policy is not renewed (Platzer, 2013). These tax incentives, along
with the cash grant program, helped the annual growth rate of PV installations reach over 10%,
but questions about future growth remain. Additional potential barriers for the US PV market
result from the lack of a coordinated national program to develop this market since energy
policies are set at a state level without a common aim. Australia and the US have this barrier in
common due to the lack of homogeneity in policies between their states (Mortarino & Guidolin,
2010).
2.2.3 Australian PV Government Incentives
Through the years 2007 to 2011, The Solar Homes and Communities Plan (SHCP)
provided a major stimulus to the PV market in Australia. This program provided upfront rebates
of up to $8,000 for small-scale PV systems. Funding for this program ended in June 2009, but a
13
large number of pre-approval applications were received in the closing day so installations
continued through 2011. Overall, a total of 155.62 MW of PV were installed through this
program (Watt, 2011). Another very important government-funded program for the Australian
PV market was the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program (RRPGP). This program
provided rebates of up to 50% for the systems and committed around $300 million to renewable
energy generation in remote and regional areas. More than 9,000 residential and medium-scale
projects up to 20 kW in size were installed due to the RRPGP (Watt, 2011).
Australian state and territorial governments spent $104.6 million in 2012 on PV R&D,
demonstration, and market stimulation (Watt, 2012). The Clean Energy Regulator (CER), an
Australian government body, is responsible for building a clean energy future. To work towards
this goal, the CER expanded on the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which was established in
2001 to reach a goal of 9,500 GWh of new generation. The enhanced RET operates as two parts:
Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme
(SRES). The LRET provides incentives for the deployment of large-scale renewable energy
projects such as wind farms, while the SRES provides incentives for the installation of small-
scale systems such as solar panels. Australia’s goal in utilizing various schemes for the
promotion of PV systems is to aid in its aim of having a combined 20% renewable energy of
total electricity generation by 2020 ("Renewable Energy Target," 2013).
Through the SRES, consumers are eligible for financial benefits (such as a discount off
the price of purchase and installation) if they have a new system that complies with all local,
state, and federal requirements for its type of installation. This scheme operates by entitling the
owners of these systems to create small-scale technology certificates (STCs) worth between $15-
$40. The STCs can be sold to RET liable entities, who have the legal liability to purchase a
certain amount of STCs a year, or to the STC Clearing House. STCs can be viewed as green
energy stocks that are traded among registered agents or on a market known as the Clearing
House. The STC Clearing House offers a fixed price of $40 for the certificates, but there is no
guarantee as to how long it will take for the STCs to sell in this market. Alternatively, they can
be sold to registered agents for, generally, less than $40, depending on the state of the PV
market. The number of STCs a PV system can create is based on the amount of MWh it
generates over the course of its lifetime of up to 15 years. In addition to the STCs, there is a
mechanism known as the Solar Credits multiplier, which increases the number of STCs able to
14
be created for the first 1.5 kW of on-grid capacity installed in an eligible location. For example, a
3 kW system in Melbourne with a 2x Solar Credit multiplier would generate 79 STCs, providing
a financial benefit between $1,185 and $3,160 ("Renewable Energy Target," 2013). The Solar
Credits multiplier was designed to shrink annually so that subsidies would be strategically
wound back as the prices of PV systems decreased (Martin, 2013).
When this program started in the beginning of 2011, the Solar Credit multiplier was set at
five, but it decreased over the past years and now has been removed altogether. The
announcements of reduction of the multiplier caused enormous peaks in sales, followed by a
large decline in sales after the reduction came into effect (Figure 6). This stepped reduction has
led to a “boom-bust” cycle, known as the “Solar Coaster,” which makes it very difficult to run a
renewable energy or PV business (Peacock, 2013).
Sales and installations of PV systems have decreased as of late due to the reduction of the
Solar Credits and other government incentives; there was a 31% decrease in PV systems creating
STCs in the past 12 months as compared to the same period in 2012 (ARENA, 2013). The newly
elected government is trying to increase the PV market over the next 10 years through the
million solar roofs program designed by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. This
program offers a $500 rebate, on top of the existing government supported financial incentives,
to households who buy a PV system or solar hot water system. The main focus for this rebate
program is on low-income households, which currently is a market sector that has not been
developed due to initial cost of system investment. In order to prevent a “boom-bust” cycle
similar to ones that other incentives have generated, there is a limit of no more than 100,000
grants (i.e., AU$5,000,000) per year (Brazzale, 2013).
With increasing dependency on market forces, rather than government programs and
incentives, understanding how future markets may work and the role that socio-demographic
variables might play becomes increasingly important.
2.3 Socio-Demographic Drivers for Residential Investment in PV Systems
The motivations behind the act of purchasing solar PV systems can help identify
particular consumer profiles, an understanding of which can help to improve marketing and
adoption of PV. Answering the following questions helped us to better understand the types of
people buying solar PV:
15
1. What common drivers or motivating trends are behind the purchasing of residential PV
systems?
2. How can we identify the differences between early PV adopters and early majority PV
adopters to understand drivers for each?
3. What kinds of market strategies are in place to promote PV installation?
To answer each of these questions, we identified relevant case studies that support
theoretical models of the key drivers behind residential investment in PV. They identified several
types of drivers, such as pro-environmental behaviours, internal drivers such as attitudes, and
external influences such as peer effects.
Everett Rogers studied the attributes that affect the PV market and created a series of
hypotheses and diffusion models that we use to explore further the motives for PV installation
(Mikulina, 2007). We explored several of the top hypotheses relevant to the development of our
project and utilised case studies that have drawn conclusions on the main variables effecting PV
adoption to test our data.
2.3.1 Pro-environmental Behaviours Relevant to Solar PV
Many experts within the environmental field have researched pro-environmental
behaviours (also known as green behaviours). Pro-environmental behaviour “…means the
behaviour that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural
and built world (e.g. minimize resource and energy consumption, use of non-toxic substances,
reduce waste production)” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). While there are numerous works on
how green behaviour affects the solar PV market, there is little work on researching the psycho-
demographic determinants of green consumption. Investing in residential solar PV is a passive
behaviour; people spend the money to invest in a PV system, have the system installed, and the
panels provide energy for the homeowner. Solar PV does not have a direct impact on the actions
of a person’s life. This led us to question why someone would go through the trouble of investing
in PV and what their motivations are.
Reasoning behind investment in PV systems stems back to environmental motivation.
Based on research into environmental behaviours, “some adopters may have high levels of
environmental motivation and may bypass the knowledge or persuasion stages all together and
simply adopt [the innovation]” (Mikulina, 2007, p. 53). Therefore, environmental motivations
16
may have a great effect on adoption rates. Rogers also has theoretical hypotheses pertaining to
solar PV investment. His Hypothesis 8 suggests the following:
Hypothesis 8: The propensity of a homeowner to adopt GPV (grid connected PV) is
positively correlated with homeowner’s pro-environmental orientation and level of
involvement in other pro-environmental behaviours (Mikulina, 2007, p. 37).
Rogers makes a sound point by relating the homeowner’s attitude of environmental
conscious behaviours to the purchasing of solar PV systems. However, it is difficult to fully
classify “pro-environmental behaviours” because current studies use different methods to
classify this. With this in consideration, we can now take a look at how consumer attitudes affect
the success of the PV market.
2.3.2 Technology Adoption Life Cycle
The Technology Adoption Life Cycle (refer to Table 2) provides a model behind the
types of people purchasing products and when they choose to make their investment. This model
determines the 5 different types of adopters and what percentage of the population they make up.
The percentages are all derived from the standard deviations of a normal distribution. The
Innovators, only a small percentage of the population (2.5%), are the first group to invest money
into the development of the product. Oftentimes, these people are of higher social status and are
involved with financing the initial prototypes and set the stage for the intial value of the product.
The Early Adopters are next to purchase and are the following 13.5% of the population. They
typically wait to buy the product until they know they can break even with their initial
investment. The Early Majority, the next 34% of the population, are more deliberate before
adopting a new idea and wait unil there is more certainty in the investment. The Late Majority,
or the following 34% of the population, wait until the product is a standard in society before
purchasing. This group wants to be certain that the product is widely used, works as desired, and
others within their geographical location also have the product. Finally, the Laggards, or the last
16% of individuals, tend to hold on to traditional values and have a greater resistance to
innovations. They are the last group of people to adopt an innovation (Mikulina, 2007, p. 29).
Table 2 summarizes the classifications of the Technology Adoption Life Cycle through an
overview of the types of people that purchase products and when they purchase them.
17
Adopter Category Characteristics
Innovators
First 2.5%
Venturesome and eager to try new ideas; have more years of
formal education; higher social status; have substatial
financial resources; able to cope with high degree of
uncertainty
Early Adopters
Following 13.5%
Respected by peers; more integrated part of the local
system; opinion leaders; role models for other members of
social system
Early Majority
Following 34%
Deliberate before adopting new idea; Adopt new ideas just
beore the average member of a system; interact frequently
with peers
Late Majority
Following 34%
Approach innovations with caution and skepticism; adopt
new ideas just after the average member of a system;
adoption may be due to economic necessity or peer pressure
Laggards
Final 16%
Hold on to traditional values; resistance to innovation; near
isolates in the social networks of local system
Table 2. Summary of Classifications within the Technology Adoption Life Cycle, Modified.
(Mikulina, 2007, p. 29).
2.3.3 Internal Drivers, Consumer Attitudes, Socio-Demographics and their Effects on the
PV Market
A study conducted in the U.K. used two methods to analyse people’s perceptions of solar
PV. These methods identified descriptors of solar panels and compared people’s perceptions of
them through ranking how negatively or positively they perceived them in a survey. Ten
previous Early Adopters were interviewed first to identify characteristics of solar power. One
hundred Early Adopters of PV were then surveyed along with 1000 Early Adopters of other
energy-efficient products for comparison of the two surveyed groups (Faiers & Neame, 2006).
The interviewed Early Adopters were retired or approaching retirement, and had large amounts
of disposable income. They were mostly motivated by concern for future financial situations,
environmental impact, and desire to live sustainably (Faiers & Neame, 2006).
The analysis revealed contrasting perceptions between the Early Adopters and the Early
Majority of payback periods, grant levels, solar PV as a home improvement, and the impact of
solar systems on visual landscape. This demonstrates a “chasm,” or a difference, between the
Early Adopters and Early Majority in their perceptions of PV. It is shown that people in the
Early Majority have the perception that solar power systems are unattractive, unaffordable, and
that the grant levels are not high enough. This study suggested that PV sales personnel could
convince the Early Majority that solar systems do not affect the visual landscape, that installation
18
is simple and the system requires no maintenance, and that it adds value to the property. Added
property value is necessary since it will attract consumers who may move out of their house
before the payback period ends (Faiers & Neame, 2006). In order to further the expansion of the
PV market, the external drivers need to be understood in order to develop strategic marketing
programs geared towards targeting new solar PV system customers.
The Drivers of Domestic PV Uptake study, conducted by ACIL Allen Consulting and
commissioned by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, examined the extent of the effects
of several socio-economic and socio-demographic variables on the likelihood of households to
uptake PV systems. The study used data collected through the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) on
PV installation numbers over the duration of the Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme
(SRES), socio-economic data from the 2011 Australian Census, and income data from the
Australian Taxation Office. The CER data provides a snapshot of PV installations in December
2011 and August 2013, and the Australian Census data is from August 2011 (Allen, 2013).
Between the two times observed by the study, owner occupation rates were found to be
the most consistently significant variable in the prediction of PV installations, with a strong
positive correlation, meaning higher percentages of owner occupied dwellings resulted in greater
numbers of PV installations. Other strong positive correlations were: the number of bedrooms
per dwelling, the proportion of occupants in a given neighbourhood over 53 years of age,
increasing unemployment rates, and proportion of households in single and semi-detached
houses (Allen, 2013). Household income was found to be positively correlated with predicted PV
uptake, but this relation stabilizes at higher household yearly incomes, after $78,000 (Allen,
2013). Other important variables that effect PV uptake that we will be comparing to our data are
described in Table 3.
19
Variable Effect on PV Uptake
Income Generally increasing effect on PV uptake
Age Higher proportions of older residents and lower
proportions of children suggest higher PV uptake
Dwelling type Higher uptake where more dwellings are detached or
semi-detached
Dwelling size Higher where more dwellings are owner occupied
Dwelling location type Higher uptake in rural and regional locations
Proportion of children Negative effect
Tertiary education Positive effect
Unemployment rate Positive effect
Proportion of people
who lived at the same
address five years ago
Negative effect
Table 3. Variables effecting PV Uptake. (Allen, 2013).
The duration of an owner’s occupation at the same address was found to have a strong
negative correlation with PV uptake prediction. This study concluded that new homeowners may
desire to stay in their current house for a long period of time, and thus will be more willing to
make a long-term investment in the purchase of a PV system. As the number of children in a
house increases, there is less of a chance for PV uptake. Since the end of 2011, college education
rates went from being positively related to being negatively related to PV uptake. This report
suggests this may be due to areas with high proportions of college educated residents being
saturated with solar power since the end of 2011 (Allen, 2013).
Along with the analysis of demographic factors, part of the study included mapping total
uptake by postcode across Australia to gauge the increase in uptake from December 2011 to
August 2013 (Consulting, 2013). The rate of uptake in Melbourne increased more slowly over
the past two years compared with Brisbane and Adelaide areas, but was on par with uptake in the
Perth area. Side-by-side comparisons of uptake in the Melbourne area at these times are in Figure
8. Side-by-side comparison of Melbourne PV uptake in December 2011 and August 2013. (Consulting,
2013). The maps indicate an increase in uptake since the end of 2011 in and around Melbourne.
This could be misleading since in less populated postcodes a small amount of uptake would
represent a larger proportion of that area’s population.
20
The uptake of solar PV throughout Australia is also shown within a different
investigation. Alice Solar City (ASC) looked at the widespread adoption of PV along with
demographic drivers for installation. A study of 268 of households that were customers of ASC,
which all had PV systems installed, and a control group of 169 households, which had little
participation with ASC other than initial sign-up, was conducted to analyse demographic effects
on the likelihood of becoming an Early Adopter (see Section 2.3.4). Socio-economic and socio-
demographic data were collected from all subjects of these samples over the course of a two-year
period (June 2008 to June 2010) (Havas, Latz, Lawes, Pemma, Race, 2012).
Figure 8. Side-by-side comparison of Melbourne PV uptake in December 2011 and August
2013. (Allen, 2013).
Findings from this study included links between willingness to adopt and income, house
size, and house style. There was a positive relationship between household income and energy
use. Higher income households tended to be high-energy users and have more disposable income
available to invest in renewable energy. Therefore, higher income homeowners would be more
likely to adopt solar PV than lower-income households. However, there tended to be fewer high-
income households than low-income households, and it was concluded that low-income
households are not significantly more likely to take up PV. Therefore, to achieve greater uptake,
according to Havas et al (2012), middle-income households should be targeted to take up PV
21
since they make up a large proportion of the overall population. Mikulina (2007) also suggested
that annual income alone was not an appropriate measure of a household’s likelihood of adopting
PV. A more appropriate method, rather, is to measure a household’s wealth based upon the
individual’s perception of how much of an impact a large purchase would have on his or her
lifestyle. It has been shown that people who think they have an ability to spend a large amount of
money with little impact on their economic standing are both more interested in and would be
more willing to invest in PV than people who cannot spend this much money (Mikulina, 2007).
House size and style has also shown to be a reliable predictor of likeliness to adopt early
(Havas et al., 2012). Apartments and flats are least likely to adopt early since roof space is often
shared between occupants and approvals required from Owners’ Corporations complicate
installation. A tenant, either renter or owner-occupier, would need approval from the Owners’
Corporation to install a solar panel on the property and reap its benefits (Whittles, 2013). Semi-
detached housing and terrace housing may also have the issue of dealing with an Owners’
Corporation or homeowner’s association.
Renters face the additional barrier of dealing with their landlords when negotiating a PV
installation. Some Australian states such as Queensland introduced legislation in 2010 mandating
the disclosure of energy efficiency ratings when putting properties up for sale or rent as a way to
ensure energy efficiency and to aid buyers in their decision-making processes (Bryant & Eves,
2012). Mandates such as these have the potential to incentivise landlords to have PV systems
installed on their properties by adding another variable to their competition for tenants.
Legislation such as this has not been presented yet in Victoria, but it is currently being discussed
(King, 2011).
A negative trend between increasing house size and likelihood to adopt early was found
(Havas et al., 2012). Havas et al., (2012) suggest that this may be due to owners of large houses
having less available income as a result of it being invested in a larger house, which agrees with
the Drivers of Domestic PV Uptake study. Higher levels of education were also shown to
significantly influence willingness to adopt early (Havas et al., 2012). These findings support
Rogers’ second hypothesis that PV adopters are more likely to exhibit high income (Mikulina,
2007).
22
2.3.4 External Drivers in the PV Market: Decision-Making, Peer Effects, and Visibility
Bollinger and Gillingham analysed the “peer effect” on households without PV systems
in proximity to other households with installed PV systems (2012). Using statistical analyses
within a single zip code, it was found that household size contributes to the peer effect. The
existence of more people in a household results in increased visibility of installed PV systems.
For example, longer commutes to work taken by more members of a household can contribute to
the peer effect since they allow for visibility of more installed houses. Large PV installations
increase visibility and may enhance the peer effect, but it is likely that the same wattage spread
across several homes in the form of smaller solar panels further enhances the peer effect. Any
visible installation within a zip code was found to increase the probability of another adoption
within the same zip code by 0.78%. PV installers have been known to put up signs indicating
where solar panels have been installed, which is also a form of increasing visibility of PV
systems. From this, we can interpret that awareness and the level of innovativeness is important
to further uptake in the PV market (Bollinger & Gillingham, 2012). The level of innovativeness,
or “the degree to which an individual … is relatively [early] in adopting new ideas than … other
members of the system,” can be shown through another common model, the Technology
Adoption Life Cycle (Mikulina, 2007).
2.3.5 Australian Socio-Demographics and Motivation for Solar PV Uptake
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) conducted
a national survey titled Australian householders’ interest in the distributed energy market, in
which they examined households’ likelihood to adopt solar PV, along with other solar energy
products. They determined that householders’ primary motivation for installing solar PV systems
was to save money on their power bills. Reducing their houses’ carbon emissions or benefiting
from the government rebates only consisted of around 20% combined (Figure 9) (Romanach &
Ashworth, 2013 ).
23
Figure 9. Primary Motivation for Installing Solar PV Systems. (Romanach & Ashworth,
2013 ).
Older age groups and males were found to have more overall knowledge of PV systems
through a test conducted in this survey, and there was no statistically significant difference of
knowledge scores among high income and low income. From their studies, they found that the
main reason for choosing solar PV was that it reduces electricity costs. Only 9.6% of
householders said benefiting the environment was the most important attribute (refer to Figure
10).
Figure 10. Key Technology Attributes, Proportion of Choices as Most Important (Romanach &
Ashworth, 2013).
Overall, householders most preferred paying for a solar device upfront. The effect of age
was statistically significant in the importance score for buying upfront, and it was indicated that
32.30%
16.40%14.70%
11.00%
9.60%
9.10%
4.00%2.40% 0.50%
Reduces electricity costs
Technology is reliableand durable
Meets my currentelectricity needs
Provides uninterruptedpower
Benefits theenvironment
Reduces reliance onenergy retailers
24
buying upfront is most preferred for respondents in older age groups than it is for younger
respondents. The younger age groups were more likely to choose financial and leasing options
than the older age groups. Across the full sample, respondents trusted CSIRO, consumer
organisations, scientists/engineers, and experts in solar technology the most to provide honest
and accurate information about the use of solar energy. Some of the least trusted sources
included the media, electricity and gas companies, and government departments. The most
preferred means of information were case studies showing advantages and disadvantages of
investing in solar, and online information through a solar industry website. According to this
study, phone calls from the energy supplier, the newspaper, and magazine/TV advertising were
the least preferred means of information (Romanach & Ashworth, 2013).
2.3.6 Marketing Strategies to Promote PV Installation
Bird and Swezey conducted research on green power marketing within the United States
and had great success using Grassroots marketing tactics (Haas, 2002). Grassroots marketing
relies on the effort of targeting a smaller audience in the hopes that the message will be spread to
a larger audience. This method is less conventional than other marketing efforts, but due to the
ripple effect and diffusion of innovation through peer-effects, it can influence a larger
population.
In summary, focus areas such as pro-environmental behaviours, consumer attitudes
towards investing in residential PV systems, external drivers such as peer effects and visibility,
and strategic marketing tactics are key components to understanding the socio-demographics
behind potential PV adopters. While many models and Australian solar PV case studies exist,
Rogers’ models provide us with the greatest understanding of the adoption process of solar
power (Mikulina, 2007, p. 52). Conceptually, his hypotheses provide an organized, theoretical
foundation to set the stage for our research and methodology.
Overall, it is crucial to understand the socio-demographic and socio-economic factors that
both motivate and discourage households to adopt solar PV in order to determine a potential
consumer profile. An understanding and synthesis of the history of solar PV, the PV market,
impacts of ongoing and future government policies, incentives and regulations, pro-
environmentalism, and corresponding marketing strategies will play a key role in determining
the second million solar PV investors.
25
Chapter 3: Methodology
The Positive Charge Initiative, driven by the Moreland Energy Foundation Ltd. (MEFL),
is striving to promote greater adoption of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in
Moreland, Australia. Positive Charge and MEFL hope to aid in the expansion of the total number
of households with PV systems in Australia by another million. The goal of this project was to
identify the factors that affect the adoption of residential PV systems in Moreland. In order to
achieve this goal, we:
1. Estimated the potential carrying capacity for PV in Moreland;
2. Determined key market forces and technical constraints affecting the adoption of PV
based on interviews with installers and other key stakeholders;
3. Identified and surveyed households with PV installations to determine what factors
influenced their decision to install a PV system and the barriers they overcame;
4. Surveyed MEFL and Zero Carbon Moreland members within the local community to
identify potential influencing factors for installing a PV system; and,
5. Provide recommendations and strategies to MEFL to promote future expansion in
Moreland
3.1 Objective 1: Estimated the potential Carrying Capacity for Moreland
We estimated the potential carrying capacity of solar PV for Moreland by determining
the maximum total roof space available for solar panels. We conducted a mapping analysis with
Nearmap ™3 on three selected postcodes: Fawkner, Pascoe Vale and Brunswick. These
postcodes were chosen to represent the different economic backgrounds of Moreland: Fawkner
represents low-income, Pascoe Vale represents middle-income, and Brunswick represents high-
income.
3.1.1 Measured Roofs within Three Selected Postcodes in Moreland Using Nearmap™
We used zoning maps to identify three residential blocks within each selected postcode.
Each dwelling was numbered from the top left corner of the block to the bottom right corner of
each block to allow us to track each house when taking measurements for our later analysis.
3 Nearmap ™ is a high-resolution and frequently updated aerial imagery program that contains an area
measurement tool accurate to ± 15 cm
26
Only buildings which appeared to be residential (i.e. buildings that did not have large parking
lots and looked similar to the surrounding dwellings) were measured.
From interviews with installers, we developed the proper methods to effectively use
Nearmap™ to take measurements. We determined the amount of space on a roof that was
available to support solar panels. These interviews occurred during our mapping process, which
resulted in adjusting our methods. Originally, we measured the entire surface facing in each
direction without taking into account any constraints, such as:
1) Shading, which could significantly disrupt the production of the cells
2) Obstacles such as antennas and chimneys, which solar panels cannot be installed over
3) The type of roof; some roof structures cannot support solar panel systems. Many tin
roofs do not have suitable support for solar panel systems, and asbestos roofs can
pose safety risks to installers.
4) Spacing around the solar panel systems, because solar panel systems cannot be easily
supported if installed too close to a roof’s edge.
5) The dimensions of an Australian standard 255 W solar panel, according to a sales
employee of Braemac, which are approximately 1.7 metres by 1 metre.
6) Maintaining the aesthetics of a roof. This involves not mixing ‘portrait’ and
‘landscape’ orientations of solar panels on a single roof surface, and keeping them
neatly ordered on a roof’s surface.
We developed a revised method to adjust for the various constraints. Many of the
measurements taken in Brunswick with the original method contained tin overhangs, which
significantly skewed the gross and north-facing roof space, we retook all gross and north-facing
measurements in Brunswick to correct these errors. We conducted this revised method fully on
Fawkner first, and then returned to Brunswick and Pascoe Vale to adjust our initial
measurements with a correction factor.
Houses were measured in increasing order of the numbers assigned to them in each
block. Once a house had been selected for measurement, the entire area of the roof was measured
by outlining the perimeter of the roof with the area measurement tool. The measurement was
then recorded in a spread sheet next to the house’s number, determined previously using the
zoning maps. We determined which surfaces of the roof were facing North, East, and West;
according to several PV installers, south-facing solar panels do not perform well and are rarely
27
ever installed in this orientation, therefore they were excluded from our calculations. Flat roofs
were all considered to be suitable for north-facing solar panels. We measured the width of a
standard solar panel using the length measurement tool on Nearmap. The area measurement tool
would then be used to create a box across the roof for the area of a single strip of solar panels
with the previous length measurement as a guide. . The perpendicular height above the first row
of solar panels needed to be at least 2 metres in order for there to be enough room for another
row of panel. If there was enough room, additional rows were added. For each house, we
determined three measurements: total North, East, and West available roof space. An example of
measurements taken on a typical house can be seen in Figure 11. The lines beside each box are
1.7 metres in width.
Figure 11. Example of measurements on a typical rooftop in Moreland.
After the mapping exercise was completed for Fawkner, we returned to Pascoe Vale and
Brunswick to apply our revised measurement method. Ten houses within each postcode were
measured and compared to their original measured roof space in the form of a fraction of the
original measurement. In doing so, we were able to apply a correction factor to all of our
measurements, improving its accuracy. The correction factor for Brunswick was used to correct
east and west measurements since the north-facing measurements were done with the more up-
to-date method. The correction factor for Brunswick was 0.556 and Pascoe Vale was 0.618.
When new technologies become more prevalent, such as building-integrated PV, the amount of
available roof space will undoubtedly increase. With our improved total roof space calculations,
we proceeded to calculate the carrying capacity for our chosen postcodes and the entirety of
Moreland.
28
3.1.2 Calculated the Carrying Capacity within Three Sampled Postcodes and for entirety of
Moreland
In order to perform accurate calculations, we created an Excel® spread sheet utilizing
built-in functions and formulas. We performed two sets of calculations for each postcode
individually and for Moreland as a whole: one set of calculations took into consideration the
percentage of rented dwellings, number of heritage overlay properties and a 5kW system max
while the other set did not have any constraints.
We created three columns to collect the North, East, and West measurements from
Nearmap™ for each dwelling. Then we multiplied the correction factors for measurement errors
by the measurements for Brunswick and Pascoe Vale. Next, the measurements were converted to
kilowatts (kW) using. The conversion assumes a 255 W solar panel has an area of 1.7 m2.
We then compared the kW values of East and West to determine which measurement was
greater because typical inverters can only have two strings of PV systems attached to them,
resulting in installation on a combination of North and either East or West roof orientations.
Next, we summed the North column data with the greater of East or West to obtain the total
system potential in kW. The average of the total system potential in kW yielded the respective
postcode’s average system size per house in kW. Multiplying this average by the number of
dwellings in that postcode resulted in the postcode’s unrestricted carrying capacity.
We followed the prior step a second time, excluding rented properties and dwellings in
heritage overlays. According to the installers and MEFL employees, a typical residential PV
system is less than 5 kW as well, so we limited each system measurement to 5 kW and used the
average of these as the average system size per postcode.
We then summed the North orientation column, the comparison East/West capacities
column, and the average system size per house, separately. In order to convert from kW to
kilowatt-hours (kWh) we used values acquired through the MEFL staff for the peak sun hours
(PSH) times the derating factor (DF). The derating factor accounts for loss of power due to
constraints such as dirt accumulation and inverter efficiency. Because these numbers took into
consideration only the North orientation, we had to adjust these values for East/West orientation.
We did this through taking a weighting of the orientation to obtain an average overall peak sun
hours times derating factor. For example, Brunswick has a North PSH x DF of 3.64, which we
multiplied by 77.92, the sum of all North measurements, and divided by, 184.32, the total
29
measurements. We then multiplied 3.02, the East PSH x DF by 118.41, the sum of the East/West
measurements and divided by 184.32, the total measurements. Adding the results of the previous
two steps, yields 3.26, the total average per year PSH x DF for Brunswick. This calculation
resulted in the accurate conversion factor (PSH x DF)Avg All Orientations which we used to translate
the kW measurements into kilowatt-hours (kWh).
Then, we obtained weighting factors for the North and East/West peak sun hours using
the ratios of average North and average East/West capacity to the overall average capacity. Table
4 shows the values used to convert PSH times DF for North to PSH times DF for East/West
orientation.
As shown, the number of peak sun hours is different depending on the orientation, so the
conversions of kW to kWh for North and East/West differ. We used 3.26, 3.31, and 3.32 as the
PSH times DF values for Brunswick, Pascoe Vale, and Fawkner, respectively.
Next, we used the peak sun hours times derating factor to obtain new values in kWh. For
example, Brunswick’s system capacity of 2.85 kW was multiplied by 3.26, the peak sun hours
times derating factor for Brunswick.
Conversion Ratios
Total E/W Ratio 0.603
Total N Ratio 0.397
Conversion to kWh
North Conversion 3.64
East Conversion 2.99
West 3.04
East/West Average 3.02
Weighting East/West 1.82
Weighting North 1.44
Peak Sun Hours x Derating 3.26
Table 4. Brunswick Conversion Ratios for peak sun hours times derating factor
30
To obtain the kWh per house per year we multiplied the kWh per house by 365 days per
year. Then to obtain the full postcode capacity in GWh, we multiplied the kWh per house per
year by the postcode’s number of dwellings. We repeated the process for all three postcodes
tested: Brunswick, Pascoe Vale, and Fawkner. Finally, we were able to scale up to all of
Moreland based on the number of dwellings in each measured postcode as proportions of the
total number of dwellings in these postcodes.
We performed two verification tests to check our calculations by finding the percentage
of dwellings per postcode and multiplying that by either Brunswick, Pascoe Vale, or Fawkner
system size. Bruce Thompson provided us with classifications of each postcode as being similar
to Brunswick, Pascoe Vale, or Fawkner according to the ages of each postcode. Once we had all
of the postcodes calculated, we summed the results together to obtain the system size for all of
Moreland. We then compared this value with the original value. The calculations with and
without restrictions had 11% and 2% error, respectively. Since the error values were less than
15%, we have high confidence that the numbers are valid.
3.2 Objective 2: Determined key market forces and technical constraints affecting the
adoption of PV
We conducted interviews with six individuals from four PV installation companies to
uncover unknown motivations and barriers in the solar PV market. Because the installers work
directly with homeowners, we anticipated that their perspective would enlighten key information
for further investigation.
3.2.1 Interview Instrument Development
We developed our interview questions through multiple drafts. We reviewed previous
questions asked in literature and reworded questions to broad opening topics with specific
follow-up questions, which resulted in a more valuable range of answers from the installers. We
wanted to compare all of the installers’ answers to the open-ended questions to determine if there
were trends between socio-demographics, marketing strategies, and technical barriers.
3.2.2 Interview Sample and Recruitment
In order to understand the overall picture and scope of the solar PV market within
Australia as a whole and make comparisons with the PV market in Moreland, we conducted six,
semi-structured interviews with four different solar PV installation companies that worked both
locally and nationally. To obtain our list of installers, we consulted with Bruce Thompson, the
31
project manager of Positive Charge. He provided us with the names and contact information for
the installers that we interviewed. We then sent an email to all of the interviewees, requesting an
interview, and coordinated the interview logistics based on their availability. Refer to Table 5 for
the company descriptions, interviewee names, and interview dates.
Installer
Name
Company Description Interview
Date
Interviewee
- Profession
Area
Braemac
Founded in 1986, Braemac Energy supplies a wide
range of solar products throughout Australia. In
particular, they are consultants and installers of PV
systems on homes, schools, businesses, and government
buildings
8-Nov-13 Matthew
Carmichael -
Technical
11-Nov-
13
Astrid
Murray -
Client Rel.
Solar
Gain
Founded in 1993 in Perth, Solar Gain is one of
Australia’s largest integrated solar energy businesses.
8-Nov-13 Chris Paine -
Client Rel.
Solari
Energy
Recently launched, Solari Energy is a subsidiary of
Solar Inception Pty. that operates with nationwide and
international solar outreach.
15-Nov-
13
Paul Scerri -
Group Sales
Manager
19-Nov-
13
Leigh
Hancock -
Sales
Todae
Solar
Founded in 2003, Todae Solar is an award-winning and
experienced company, installing PV nationwide with
locations in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and
Canberra.
20-Nov-
13
Sean
Sweetser -
Sales
Table 5. Summary of Installer Interviewees and Companies
3.2.3 Interview Implementation
The interviews were conversational with questions relevant to the interviewee’s position
within the company. Questions were categorised by socio-demographic, marketing, or technical
classifications. This made the interview easier because we used questions directly from the
category most appropriate to the interviewee’s background and position within the company. The
supporting documents for the PV installer interviews are given within Appendix 2.
3.2.4 Data Collection and Analysis
For both the in-person and phone interviews, we handwrote notes and recorded audio of
the conversation in groups of two. One team member was the primary scribe for the meeting and
the other was the primary interviewer. We used a digital audio recorder, if given permission from
32
the interviewee. Each interviewee had the option to keep their personal information confidential
and the ability to remain anonymous. We also asked interviewees their permission to use quotes
only with their approval. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and all notes were
checked and compared with the audio recording, if obtained. We then compiled all of the
interview notes and determined key drivers and constraints.
These interviews gave us insight to the installer’s perspective on the solar PV market as a
whole, which we used later for overall analysis. Obtaining multiple perspectives on the PV
market across Australia helped us to gain an understanding of the motivations behind investing
in residential PV systems.
3.3 Objective 3: Identify and survey households with PV installations to determine what
factors influenced their decision to install a PV system and the barriers they overcame
We surveyed PV-homeowners within Moreland by two different approaches: door-to-
door knocking and phone calls. We conducted the two different methods to ensure that we would
have a sufficient sample size from the three different suburbs representative of the different
income levels in Moreland.
3.3.1 Survey Instrument Development:
We developed our survey instruments through a series of stages. First, we reviewed
surveys distributed by MEFL and Positive Charge to their members to identify appropriate topic
areas for question structure, wording, and format.
We then developed a first draft of the PV household survey in a structured, question-by-
question format. After review from our advisors and MEFL staff members, we determined that a
semi-structured survey would suit our research better, as we would likely discover issues and
concerns that we could not anticipate in advance. Hence, we developed broad primary questions,
with follow-up questions to expand on information that may have come up in conversation.
Questions such as “Could you tell me more about why you chose to install your solar panels?”
were tailored to determine the consumer’s primary motivations for installation and was followed
up with discussion of barriers that were overcome throughout the process.
In order to adjust and determine the effectiveness of the set of questions, we scheduled
pre-tests to conduct three door-to-door surveys of PV homeowners within Moreland, two in-
person surveys of MEFL staff, and four phone interviews of MEFL’s Annual General Meeting
(AGM) / “Pub-Night” contacts. Our door-to-door methods were tested on members of Zero
33
Carbon Moreland 4, who were contacted via social media. Additionally, the MEFL AGM / “Pub
Night” attendants were contacted by email to determine their preferred time for contact (refer to
Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). Utilising the pre-tests allowed us to improve the quality of the
questions and practice conducting surveys.
After completing our pre-test, we finalised our set of questions (refer to Appendix 5), and
determined that the best method for note collection was to utilise a note-taking chart in order to
compare and consolidate answers (refer to Appendix 6).
3.3.2 Survey Sample and Recruitment:
Door-to-Door Survey:
We utilised Nearmap™ in order to identify households with PV systems installed within
each of the three selected postcodes. We chose primarily residential areas, by use of visual
indicators such as building size, structure, and distance from heavily commercial properties (i.e.
main roads and parking lots). We determined that the best areas to target were those with a high-
density of PV installations within a reasonable walking distance between households. We aimed
to target 12 to 17 dwellings, in hopes of surveying at least 4 homes. Additionally, we targeted
households that were close to public transportation service stops. In doing so, we were able to
access these dwellings more easily. After deciding on the ideal area for door-knocking, we
mapped our travel path and marked the households with PV systems installed (refer to Appendix
7).
Phone Survey:
We sent an email to Positive Charge’s contact list of 24 homeowners that installed a
system in Moreland through the Positive Charge program in order to increase our response pool
(refer to Appendix 8). Additionally, after sending our email to MEFL/ZCM members for non-PV
homeowners (discussed in 3.4), we received responses from several members that had already
installed PV systems, but were interested in contributing to our research. All respondents were
contacted via email to coordinate a date and time for conducting the survey, at their convenience.
4 Zero Carbon Moreland was a project conducted by MEFL, engaging the community to take positive local action for improved sustainability.
34
3.3.3 Survey Implementation:
Door-to-Door Survey:
After having mapped our target areas, our team split into groups of two to begin door-
knocking at the dwellings. Through trial-and-error, we determined that the optimal time for door-
knocking was between 5:45 PM and 6:45 PM, when people had arrived home from work but had
not yet eaten dinner. If the homeowner answered their door, we clearly stated our intentions by
use of our preamble (refer to Appendix 9). We stressed that we were students working on a
research project for MEFL, not selling anything, and that their answers would remain entirely
anonymous. Homeowners under the impression that we were salespeople immediately refused
participation. In order to further incentivise participation, we offered participants entry into a
drawing for two movie passes at the conclusion of the survey. The respondents listed their name
and email address to be eligible for the tickets, but were assured that it would not be used in any
identifying manner in our study.
If no one was available to speak at the selected household, we left a brief letter (refer to
Appendix 10) in their letter-box or doorway. This described our project and offered two
alternative methods for participating in our survey (i.e., online or by phone). Neither option was
used by any homeowners, however. We encountered numerous dwellings with “No Door-
Knocking” signs or that were inaccessible due to security gates or overgrown yards that we
immediately excluded from our sample.
A portion of the survey included asking personal questions, pertaining to basic socio-
demographics. We found that asking personal questions to the randomly selected sample was
uncomfortable for both parties. To compensate, we developed a “Socio-Demographics Chart”
(refer to Appendix 11) to be filled out by the homeowner at the completion of the survey. The
socio-demographics were gathered to categorise the homeowners by age, education, parenthood,
and total household income in order to analyse certain results for particular groups of people.
At the completion of our door-knocking exercise we had gathered a relatively small
sample from each postcode (refer to Table 6). A house was marked as “Unavailable” if there was
no one was available to speak, they had a “No Door Knocking” sign, or if they had a gate
preventing us from entering.
35
Location Targets Surveyed Rejected Unavailable
Brunswick 28 5 2 21
Pascoe Vale 29 4 5 20
Fawkner 28 4 4 20
Total 85 13 11 61
Table 6. Responses from Door-to-Door Surveying
To increase our information pool, we pursued phone interviews of PV homeowners who
responded to our previous emails.
Phone Survey:
After coordinating the best time for surveying with the previously contacted PV
homeowners, we called nine respondents and administered our survey in a similar fashion as our
door-to door method. The only variation in our surveying method was the collection of the socio-
demographic information. It was easier to ask these questions outright, as these respondents were
previously willing to aid in our study and were not chosen at random.
3.3.4 Data Entry and Analysis:
After collecting the postcodes of our phone survey participants, we were able to
categorise their location to correspond, in terms of economic standing, with our three target
postcodes. All data from both of our surveying methods was compiled into one spreadsheet for
ease of interpretation. In doing so, we analysed our qualitative responses from the surveys and
utilised the socio-demographics to define our sample. Our results accounted for a wide range of
varying characteristics and responses, allowing for a greater understanding of the current PV
households in Moreland.
3.4 Objective 4: Survey MEFL and Zero Carbon Moreland members within the local
community to identify potential influencing factors for installing a PV system
We conducted an online survey of individuals in Moreland that do not own a PV system to
determine what has been deterring them from purchasing a system and to identify potential
factors that could be used to increase adoption.
3.4.1 Survey Instrument Development:
We assessed previous Positive Charge surveys to determine questions that had already been
asked to its members. We reviewed Positive Charge’s survey sent out to individuals that
expressed interest in solar PV and noted its question content and wording. Then, we reviewed the
36
surveys sent out in the Drivers of PV Households and Australian Householders’ Interest in the
Distributed Energy Market (See Sections 2.3.3) to identify questions that we could ask in our
survey in order to compare the results of these studies to our analysis of Moreland. We
developed a new survey to allow us to determine the following:
1) Main reasons for not installing;
2) Preferred financial options;
3) Perception of initial cost;
4) Greatest incentive to installing a system; and
5) Most influential means of contact for information regarding PV
The survey was split into three different pages and had a total of 21 questions. The first page
was designed to help us gain a better understanding of the categories listed above. The second
page asked questions pertaining to the socio-demographics of the individual. These questions
were used to determine any relationships within certain categorisations of people. These
questions allowed us to determine drivers and barriers for the type of person more likely to
adopt, as determined through the installer interviews and previous literature. The third page was
optional and allowed the individual to fill out their name and email to be entered into a drawing
for two movie passes, provided by MEFL. It also allowed the individual to provide a phone
number if they wanted to be contacted by MEFL to receive more information about PV systems.
The full list of questions can be found in Appendix 12.
The Community Engagement Coordinator and various other MEFL employees reviewed the
survey. After it was reviewed internally, we pre-tested the survey on two lists of contacts. The
first list contained 30 contacts for people that attended MEFL’s Annual General Meeting on
October 22nd, which we were in attendance for. The second list of contacts we used for the pre-
test was MEFL’s Pub Night contacts. This was a group of 21 contacts that were interested in
being more involved with the organisation. The emails that were sent to these contacts are in
Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. We received eight online survey results from this group and four
phone calls to assist with Objective 3.
3.4.2 Survey Sample and Recruitment:
After completing the pre-test and reassessing our questions, we obtained two sets of contact
lists from MEFL to send out our survey on a large scale. The first set of contacts was Zero
Carbon Moreland (ZCM) subscribers and composed of 2,427 members. These people were
37
individuals who participated in MEFL’s project to promote sustainability in Moreland in recent
years. The second list was 998 members who signed up to receive MEFL’s e-Bulletin. We chose
these two lists because they offered a potentially large sample size; we wanted to administer our
survey to as many individuals within Moreland as possible, to increase the possible number of
responses.
3.4.3 Survey Implementation & Data Analysis:
The email that was sent out to these contacts was designed through Mail Chimp, an emailing
program for large mailing lists (refer to Appendix 13). MEFL’s Community Engagement
Coordinator advised us that emails sent out between 12-4 PM Monday through Thursday
received higher response rates. We sent an email reminding these contacts to participate in the
survey four days after sending out the survey initially. Table 7 summarizes the response rates of
these contacts list.
Contact List
Subscribers 1st Email -
Number of
Opens
1st Email -
Number of
clicks to the link
to the survey
Reminder Email
– Number of
Opens
Reminder
Email –
Number of
clicks of the
link to the
survey
Zero Carbon
Moreland
2,427 763
(31.7%)
229 (9.5%) 644 (26.9%) 91 (3.8%)
MEFL e-
Bulletin
998 297
(30.1%)
82 (8.3%) 233 (23.8%) 33 (3.4%)
Table 7. Response Rates for Online Survey
A total of 335 people started the survey and 320 respondents completed the survey (9.3% of
the email recipients).
We developed various profiles based on mutually exclusive demographic profiles, barriers
they currently face, and other factors that may influence their decision to install. We compared
the results to findings from the installer interviews and PV household surveys to determine the
most effective recommendations for MEFL to pursue.
3.5 Objective 5: Provide recommendations and strategies to MEFL to promote future
expansion in Moreland
Based on the research from our literature review and the results of the previous
objectives, we provided recommendations and strategies to MEFL to help expand the solar PV
38
market within the Moreland Municipality. Our recommendations addressed the main barriers that
we determined have been having a significant impact on the Moreland area. We provided
suggestions on how to overcome these barriers and additionally recommended methods of
communication to address them and promote the overall PV uptake in Moreland.
39
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1 Carrying Capacity Calculations
The carrying capacity calculations suggest that the Moreland municipality would be able
to offset 91% of its residential electricity usage if each dwelling installed the largest possible
solar PV system their roof can fit. The average system size able to be put on a household in
Moreland is 3.38 kW. These figures do not consider restrictions, such as rented dwellings,
heritage overlay, or a 5 kW system size maximum. We determined that a system of this size
would produce an average of 4100 kWh per year while the average electricity use per house per
year is 4489 kWh, which was provided by MEFL. The carrying capacity of solar in Moreland
was determined to be a total of 215.2 GWh produced per year while Moreland consumes roughly
236 GWh per year in residential dwellings, a difference of 20.8 GWh. Results by postcode and
for Moreland without taking into account any restrictions are shown in Table 8.
Location
Average kW
System per
House
Total GWh
produced per
year
Average
kWh
Produced
per House
per Year
Average
kWh
Consumed
per House
per Year
Percentage
of
Electricity
Produced to
Consumed
Moreland 3.38 215.2 4100 4489.5 91%
Brunswick 2.85 31.5 3389 4270.5 79%
Pascoe Vale 4.08 28.9 4927 4489.5 110%
Fawkner 3.59 18.6 4356 4562.5 95%
Table 8. Carrying Capacity Results (No Restrictions) for Three Sample Postcodes and Entirety of
Moreland
The average system size is the greatest for Pascoe Vale, followed by Fawkner and then
Brunswick. Due to its potential larger average system size, Pascoe Vale would be able to
produce 110% of the electricity it consumes in residential dwellings. Brunswick and Fawkner are
not able to completely offset their electricity usage, but could produce 79% and 95%,
respectively, of their total electricity usage in residential dwellings. The full results of this
analysis are available in Appendix 14.
4.1.1 Realistic Calculation with Restrictions
There are roughly 16,138 dwellings in Moreland that are rented, accounting for 31% of
the total number of residential dwellings. The tenants of these houses need to go through their
landlords to install PV, so we considered these dwellings to be a current constraint for PV
40
uptake. Additionally, there are also a total of 7,448 houses in Moreland that have a heritage
overlay regulation, accounting for 14% of the total number of residential dwellings. These
houses are not allowed to install PV on the part of their roof that faces the street, so
approximately 25% of these roofs cannot have PV installed on them. Furthermore, with the
reduced feed-in tariff, consumers are likely to size a system to match their consumption at peak
hours. Also, two installers stated that they would not install a system on a residential dwelling
greater than 5 kW, because then it would need to meet additional regulations. If we assume the
maximum size of a system to be 5 kW, and also subtract the restrictions from rented and heritage
overlay dwellings, the Moreland average system size is reduced to 3.20 kW and this results in a
total capacity of 126.2 GWh. Refer to Table 9 for the full capacity results taking into account
these constraints.
Location
Average kW
System per
House
Total GWh
produced per
year
Average kWh
Produced per
House per
Year
Average
kWh
Consumed
per House
per Year
Percentage of
Electricity
Produced to
Consumed
Moreland 3.20 126.2 3875 4489.5 86%
Brunswick 2.67 14.5 3182 4270.5 75%
Pascoe Vale 3.58 17.2 4330 4489.5 96%
Fawkner 3.47 13.1 4203 4562.5 92%
Table 9. Carrying Capacity Results (With Restrictions) for Three Sample Postcodes and Entirety
of Moreland
Comparing the capacity results with restrictions to those without restrictions, there was a
reduction of 5.3% of Moreland’s average kW system per house and a reduction of 41.4% in the
total GWh produced per year. An additional constraint that needs to be noted is total grid
capacity. If PV installations do see a great uptake level, it might become important to understand
the maximum capacity the grid can handle in the area of uptake.
With the opportunity to offset 86% of the electricity consumed in applicable dwellings
(non-rented and non-heritage overlay with a 5 kW system size max) and a total of 91% of the
41
electricity consumed in all residential dwellings, without restrictions, there is great potential for
future adoption of PV within Moreland.
4.2 Installer Perspectives on Key Drivers and Barriers
Based on our installer interviews we identified three key factors that act as barriers to the
adoption of PV systems, these include costs and financing, consumer knowledge, and split
incentives between landlords and renters. We also identified three factors that tend to drive the
PV adoption process that could be used in an effort to target future PV outreach and marketing
efforts. Community engagement and referrals encourage people to install PV systems, and age
appears to be a dominant variable affecting who installs. In particular, young families, retirees,
and those approaching retirement appear to be the cohorts that are most likely to install PV in the
near future (refer to Table 10).
4.2.1 Price and Financing Barrier
The price barrier includes upfront costs, return on investment (ROI), and lack of financial
awareness. Four out of six installers indicated that the main reason why consumers were hesitant
to install PV was because of initial cost. Of the six installers, five stated that return on investment
was critical in the PV installation decision-making process. PV systems are advertised based on
system costs and not system savings. One of the installers specifically mentioned that the
average return on investment for residential consumers is roughly five years. This timeline can
directly influence a homeowner’s decision because consumers are more inclined to invest if they
will profit in a reasonable time period. If the savings and ROI can be conveyed in a way that is
meaningful and tailored to each homeowner, then the initial cost of investment would seem
much more feasible.
Table 10. Key Drivers and Barriers from Installer Interviews.
Key Drivers Key Barriers
Community Engagement Price: Upfront Costs, Lack of Financing
Awareness, Perception of Return on
Investment, Green Loans
Age: Retirees & Young Families Education of Consumers: Misinformation,
Appropriate & Reliable from Reputable Source
Referrals: School, Family & Friends Renters and Roof Ownership
42
Of those four installers that emphasized initial cost as a barrier, all agreed that financing
options needed to be expanded in order to assist homeowners of lower incomes to purchase a
system. Financing options are available for homeowners but these options are not well
advertised, increasing the issue of lack of information. One installer mentioned a common
payment plan which has a high interest rate of 10%. Financial loans would be more desirable to
homeowners if realistic rates are available. However, as it stands, financing is not marketed so
that potential consumers understand the options. Financing options could be beneficial to lower
social-economic backgrounds, according to another installer, because they generally do not have
the upfront capital to invest in PV and it would ease the financial strain of electricity bills.
Because homeowners are looking to save money on their power bills, it is important to have
better advertisement of realistic financial plans in combination with educating potential
consumers of their options.
4.2.2 Consumer Knowledge Barrier
The consumer knowledge barrier is composed of misinformation about solar PV systems
and the difficulty of finding appropriate and reliable information from a reputable source.
According to the interviews, potential consumers are misinformed of the feed-in tariff and how it
affects the ROI. Some homeowners are under the impression that it is not worth investing
because they believe that there is little or no ROI. Others are misinformed about feed-in tariffs
and do not understand that with a low feed-in tariff, investing in a PV system that exceeds
personal electricity usage is less profitable. Current PV homeowners are recommending large
systems, because of their higher feed-in tariff scheme, to family and friends but this decreases
the ROI substantially. One of the installers noticed that people want a third-party involved to
take care of the decision-making, so that they do not have to learn and determine the most
suitable system. Solar PV systems require technical decisions as well as a financial decision, and
it is easy for people to become frustrated with the wide range of information out there. Through
our findings, we confirmed that lack of information and misinformation are hindering PV uptake.
To overcome this barrier, MEFL can provide reliable information through accurate and reliable
sources.
4.2.3 Regulatory Barriers on Rented Dwellings
Rental properties comprise 31% of total residential dwellings in Moreland; therefore,
there is great potential to install PV on these dwellings, as also supported by the installers. Half
43
of the installers stated that finding a way to promote PV adoption to landlords who own these
dwellings would significantly improve the market. Most landlords do not invest in PV systems
because they do not believe it would be a profitable action for them. This may be due to them not
being able to be publically recognised for improving the energy performance of their rental
property because there is no mandatory disclosure of energy ratings for rental properties.
Because of this, it is harder for them to charge extra for rent and still be able to rent out the
dwelling, even though the tenant could save money on electricity bills in a more sustainable
dwelling. An interesting idea that one of the installers presented is the idea of scheme that
addresses the split incentive problem, where both tenants and landlords would benefit from a
solar panel installation. Under the split-incentive scheme, tenants would pay for the system and
installation, and landlords would give their tenants a discount on their rent for doing so.
Even though there are notable key barriers that the PV market needs to overcome in order
to have future market success, there are also three key drivers we need to consider based on
installer recommendations: target age groups, referral programs, and community engagement.
4.2.4 Target Age Groups: Retirees and Young Families
Four of the six installers agreed that the best two age groups to target are retirees and
young families. Retirees have been identified by all of the installers interviewed as having the
top share of solar power uptake and being the main targets for current and future PV installation.
The installers believe that retirees tend to have more disposable income to invest in a solar
system and are unlikely to have children living at home. Most retirees have paid off their
mortgages resulting in less financial commitments. Their desire to settle down in the same
dwelling for an extended period of time could also explain their inclination to have solar power
installed. Since retirees are typically on fixed incomes, and electricity prices are predicted to rise
in the future, they desire a sense of security for their future; PV can contribute towards this
security.
Additionally, young families are another rising consumer group to target according to PV
installers. Half of the installers noted that new families with young children are more likely to
invest in PV systems than other age groups. New young families want to reduce their bills as
much as possible, and investing in PV can help offset their costs as their children grow up. One
installer directly stated that young families would be willing to take out a loan to support their
PV investment while their children are still young and not using as much electricity. By reaching
44
out to new young families, we can continue to promote PV in terms of future savings, which,
from an installer’s perspective is essential to expanding the PV market.
4.2.5 Driving the Market through Community Engagement and Referrals
Community engagement has been very successful in driving PV installations. PV systems
are designed to suit a consumer’s needs on a household level. Community events help promote
awareness of the technology as well. People who have not considered solar PV might be more
willing to learn about and invest in the technology if their neighbourhood is involved in a
program on solar energy. Referral programs also help to further engage people’s interest in solar
PV technology on this same personal level.
One company we interviewed had great success with school referrals. When schools look
to invest in a PV system, they send a referral letter home with students. If the parents then decide
to install PV on their homes, they receive a discount from the installer and the school receives a
donation. The idea is that the school would use profits made from the PV system to purchase
school supplies and support school programs. The installers would then use the students to help
advertise to their families the benefits of switching to solar systems through the referral discount.
We believe that this is an interesting approach to widen the spectrum of PV homeowners because
it relies directly on word-of mouth marketing and messaging. It does, however, rely on installer
reliability. If expectations are not met, the school may be blamed for inadequate referrals.
Another company we spoke with mentioned that their marketing strategies rely solely on
referrals of previous customers. Because people are more inclined to trust the advice of family
and friends, and like to see testimonials that the investment is worthy, word of mouth can sway
people’s decisions to invest. One interviewee said that if a large family was content with their
solar PV system, the rest of their family would be more likely to invest in systems as well.
Referrals start the ripple effect: once one person invests, his/her friends and family invest and so
on and so-forth. Honing in on the power of messaging and communication was a common trend
between all of the conversations we had with PV installers.
In summation, the majority of installers were in agreement on the primary barriers and drivers to
PV adoption and the particular age groups for improved uptake, thus allowing for a greater
understanding of the local PV market.
45
4.3 Understanding the PV Homeowner Perspective: Motivations and Challenges
behind Investment
In total we surveyed 22 homeowners, with 17 including socio-demographics. We
surveyed 13 through our door-to-door method and 9 by phone. We analysed the PV homeowner
survey results to assess the key drivers and barriers of previous PV installations in the local
community.
4.3.1 Results Summary
This sample was composed of several different age groups and income levels, as shown
in Figure 12 and Figure 13. The respondents were well educated; 13 of 17 responded that they
had received at least a university degree. There were various PV system sizes represented in this
sample, ranging from 0.5 kW to 5.2 kW; overall the most common system size was 2 kW.
Figure 12. PV Homeowner Respondents Categorized by Age
2
4
7
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Number of Respondents
Age Ranges
46
Figure 13. PV Homeowner Respondents Categorized by Income Bracket
Fifteen of the twenty-two individuals had their system installed one to three years ago
during the large boom in the industry to take advantage of the high feed-in tariff rates. Twelve
out of the twenty-two individuals had been living in their house for over ten years at the time of
installation, and only two had been there for two years or less. The installation process, including
grid connection, took anywhere between three and six weeks. Additionally, fourteen
homeowners indicated that they had not experienced any quality or performance issues with their
systems after installation, while the other homeowners indicated very minor issues (i.e. blown
fuse, wiring issues, and faulty inverter). Once they were addressed, the issues were resolved very
quickly with the assistance of the installation companies. The main difficulty with any problems
was noticing that the system was having an issue; multiple respondents indicated they did not
know their system was not working properly until they received their next electricity bills and
noticed there was no production in electricity.
Overall, nearly all respondents reported environmental consciousness as one of their
greatest motivations to install, followed by saving money on power bills. People who indicated
that they had a $0.08/kWh FiT also noted that one of their primary drivers for installation was to
become more self-sufficient in order to protect against the increased cost of electricity. The main
reason why the overall respondents held back from installing initially was the financial barrier.
The respondents primarily stated that the greatest satisfaction they received from owning a PV
system was that their actions had a positive impact on the environment (refer to Figure 14).
Various respondents indicated that the monetary benefits and having a positive impact on the
1
6
2
4
2 2
01234567
Number of Respondants
Income Ranges (AU$)
47
environment were equally satisfactory so we counted those as responses for each category; hence
the graphs in Figure 14 are not equal in number of responses.
Figure 14. Biggest Motivation/Greatest Satisfaction Responses from PV Homeownership
Two people directly said that they felt "guilt-free" about their energy usage after
installing their PV system. The monetary benefits of saving money on energy bills placed
second as a satisfaction. The majority of people who have installed PV have also taken various
other pro-environmental actions, such as using water tanks, gardening, draught-proofing, and
installing solar hot water. Half of our respondents are members of other environment groups,
such as the Alternative Technology Association, GetUp, Greenpeace, and MEFL.
4.3.2 Challenges to Installation
The main barrier PV homeowners had to overcome was the financial barrier. Some low-
income households (less than $60,000) were able to overcome this barrier without using
financing options, presumably because they had other assets. We also found that most of these
system owners were unaware of alternative payment options and would have considered utilising
one of them if they had been informed. Due to the reduction of the feed-in tariff, it has become
more cost-effective to size the PV system to match the user’s electricity needs and to not
generate much excess electricity. Because of this, PV homeowners on the $0.08/kWh tariff
reported that gaining independence from retailer energy prices was a major incentive to install, in
1412
158
3 11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Biggest Motivation Greatest Satisfaction
Percentage of Categories of
Responses
Other
Independence
Monetary
Environmental
48
addition to the environmental benefits. These households did not view the financial benefits as a
significant reason to pursue the installation.
According to the Drivers of Domestic PV Uptake report discussed in our Literature
Review (Section 2.3.3), households with people living there for 5+ years are less likely to install
PV. This was not supported through our findings, since twelve out of the twenty-two individuals
had been living in their dwellings for over ten years at the time of installation, and only two had
been there for two years or less.
Contrary to the current study being performed by the APVA to assess if system quality is
hindering market growth, our findings suggest that system quality has not been an issue for most
of the individuals in our sample (Pulsford, 2012). Therefore, system quality may not be an actual
issue, but the perception that this is an issue could be deterring potential consumers.
The greatest difficulty individuals faced with the installation process was organising the
system connection with their energy retailer and distributor. According to these homeowners,
their electricity providers made the process unclear, complex, and very drawn out. Several
people stated that the system was installed within a day, but it took a few months until the system
was finally connected to the grid and they could receive a tariff on the electricity the system
generated.
4.3.3 Perspective of Installation on Multi-Unit Dwellings
As indicated by our installer findings, it is believed to be a much more onerous process
for owners to install PV on multi-unit dwellings than on separate houses. Our findings suggest
that the process does face additional barriers, but owners can overcome them in certain
situations. The two owners of units that we interviewed were successfully able to install PV
systems onto their roofs. They both lived in relatively small apartment complexes, consisting of
10 or fewer units. One of the interviewees lived in a two-storey dwelling and owned a unit on the
first storey, while the other was in a single storey dwelling. The process these individuals faced
differed from the standard installation process because they had to get majority approval from
their Owners’ Corporations, which consists of the owners of each unit. The roof is considered
common property for these types of dwellings, and the vote had to go through a paper ballot
distributed to each of the owners. Additionally, they needed provide background information on
the costs and other potential risks to the roof by installing PV. For one of the individuals, the
49
paper ballot was provided by the company that administrates the Owners’ Corporation; however,
the other individual had to pay $150 to purchase the paper ballot.
Members of the Owners’ Corporation asked various questions to the prospective PV
owners, which included the following:
What will it look like?
Is it going to negatively affect the appearance of a dwelling?
If the roof needs to be replaced, are you going to pay for the
removal/reinstallation of the panels?
The prospective PV owners needed to take full responsibility for any additional costs that
could be caused by the panels. After they received majority approval, they were allotted roof
space above their unit. The individual in the multi-storey dwelling was only given permission to
use half of the roof space above her dwelling.
Overall the two individuals we spoke with stated that the installation process was very
drawn out and took up to a year from when they first expressed interest to their Owners’
Corporation to actually getting the panels installed. The main reason this process was drawn out
was due to the difficulty of meeting with the entire Owners’ Corporation and providing them
with information on the process, costs, and risks. If this process was better regulated, it could be
shortened greatly and contribute to a rise of individuals in similar dwellings proceeding with
installing PV.
4.4 Critical Reasons why Non-PV homeowners have not invested
In order to understand the non-PV homeowner’s perspective of PV and the barriers that
have withheld their installation, we performed an overall analysis of our online survey responses,
along with seven separate analyses of groups divided according to demographic categories. We
were able to address our five separate research questions.
4.4.1 Analytical Strategy:
We began by analysing the overall results from our entire sample to gain a greater
understanding of the overall perception of PV within Moreland. The number of responses
between demographic categories varies due to respondents answering some questions and
skipping others, but the total number of responses per question is between 316 and 326. Several
questions in our online survey asked participants to rank their responses. In order to gain an
understanding of the primary driving and hindering forces within the potential PV market, we
50
only analysed responses that were ranked first. We then divided the respondents according to
demographic characteristics: income (greater than $100,000 vs. less than $100,000 gross, total
annual household income); mortgage (homeowners with a mortgage vs. homeowners without a
mortgage); parenthood (parent/guardian vs. non-parent/guardian); homeownership (homeowner
vs. renter); age (18-44 vs. 45+); length of homeownership (less than 5 years vs. more than 5
years) and education (university degree vs. no university degree). Two mutually exclusive
groups were formed for each demographic characteristic.
We analysed their responses and determined if there was a relation between the
frequency of responses and certain categories. To do so, their responses were tabulated and
compared from those choosing a certain response versus those not (refer to Appendix 15). We
then conducted a chi-square test for independence to test whether a response is statistically more
likely to occur for one categorisation than the other. In most tests, there was no statistical
significance. If the response was statistically significant (defined as p<.05), we report the odds
ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The smaller the value of p, the more statistically
significant the result. An odds ratio is used to measure how more likely a response is within a
group, versus another response. An odds ratio of 1 means that the response is no more likely in
either group; a higher odds ratio indicates a greater relationship between the demographic
variable and the response. The confidence interval indicates the likely lower and upper bounds of
the true odds ratio. A smaller interval reflects greater statistical significance. Also, lower interval
values that approach 1 indicate that it may not have a substantial comparison between the two
characteristics. Our full tabulation of our online survey results can be found in Appendix 16.
4.4.2 Primary Reason for not Pursuing PV Installation:
With regard to discouraging factors for PV systems, 128 (42%) indicated initial cost of
the system, 49 (16%) chose ‘do not plan to stay in dwelling for an extended period of time, and
32 (16%) chose the low feed-in tariff as the primary reason for not pursuing PV installation
(refer to Figure 15. ). In addition to our provided response, 64 (21%) indicated “other.” The
majority of these responses included: “do not own roof” (i.e. renter), “roof is not suitable” (i.e.
asbestos, orientation, structure, heritage overlay), and that the benefit from installing a system is
low in comparison to other sustainability related actions. Additional responses to this question
included “do not have enough information to make a decision,” “concerned with system quality,”
and ‘no interest in solar technology,’ but their results were relatively small in comparison,
51
accounting for 11% all together. We found that only 5% indicated that they did not have proper
information to pursue installation, because installers indicated that the knowledge barrier is
withholding expansion. This can be accounted for because we only analysed the highest ranked
answer; lack of information may have been ranked high, but was less influential than initial cost.
Figure 15. Factors Most Likely to Discourage Installation
We found statistically significant relationships between most discouraging factors for
installation and parenthood and homeownership.
Respondents who are parents or guardians are 1.7 times more likely to rank initial cost as
their primary reason for not installing, as compared to non-parents/guardians (95% CI: from 1.09
to 2.77) (²(1, N = 300) = 5.42, p = .020). Parent/guardians generally have different
responsibilities and financial situation, as they are more likely to have additional costs than non-
parents, as they support their children; because of this, spending a large sum of money on a PV
system does not seem feasible in comparison to daily needs. In contrast, non-parent/guardians
were 1.9 times more likely to rank “do not plan to stay in dwelling for an extended period of
time” as their primary reason for not installing (95% CI: from 1.001 to 3.55) (²(1, N = 300) =
3.93, p = .047). Non-parent/guardians are less likely to have a reason to stay in their dwelling
42%
21%
16%
10%
5%4%
2%Initial cost of the system
Other (please specify below)
Do not plan to stay indwelling for an extendedperiod of timeLow Feed-in tariff rate
Do not have enoughinformation to make adecisionConcerned about quality ofsystems
No interest in solartechnology
52
(i.e. children in a particular school) and are less inclined to invest in PV because they would not
receive the full return on investment if they decided to out before breaking even.
While 16% of responses were “do not plan to stay in dwelling for an extended period of
time,” our data shows that respondents who rented their dwellings are 11.1 times more likely
than homeowners to be deterred from installation because of this reason (95% CI: from 5.78 to
23.24) (²(1, N = 305) = 61.35, p < 0.01). This indicates that installing a solar PV system would
not be an appealing option for a renter as the ROI will most likely outlast their stay in their
rented dwelling, causing them to lose money.
4.4.3 Preferred Payment Option
When respondents were asked what their preferred payment option would be if they were
to install a PV system, 120 (37%) responded “upfront, full payment,” 81 (25%) did not have
enough information to make a decision, 66 (20%) preferred a low financing option with a
deposit, 40 (12%) chose “zero-down deposit low-interest financing option,” and 16 (5%) would
choose a leasing option (refer to Figure 16). While people are interested in paying for their
system outright, it may not be economically feasible. This suggests that there may be insufficient
information on alternative payment options. The availability of such information could help
potential consumers overcome their concerns about financing for a PV system.
Figure 16. Preferred Payment Options
Our data shows statistically significant relationships between preferred payment option
and mortgage, age, and education.
37%
25%
21%
12%
5% Upfront, full payment
Do not have enoughinformation to make adecisionLow financing option witha deposit
Zero-down deposit, low-interest financing option
Leasing option
53
Homeowners who are currently not paying a mortgage are 2.2 times more likely to
choose an upfront payment option (95% CI: from 1.26 to 3.67) (²(1, N = 243) = 8.06, p = .005).
This is likely due to homeowners without a mortgage having assets that have already been paid
off and being able to afford to make further upfront investments.
Respondents of age 45+ were 1.6 times more likely than respondents between 18 and 44
to prefer an upfront, full payment option (95% CI: from 1.09 to 2.74) (²(1, N = 318) = 5.51, p =
.019). Older respondents are more likely to have sufficient funds after years of saving and would
prefer not to pay over a period of time. Furthermore, those who are younger are more likely to be
receptive to alternative payment options, as their funds may not be sufficient to support an
upfront cost. However, for these homeowners to utilise different financial options, they must be
fully aware of the availability of these options. Our previous indication from our overall group
response supports this, in that a majority of people are not informed enough to make a decision
on payment options.
While 12% of responses were “zero down, low-interest financing options,” respondents
without a university degree were 2.34 times more likely to choose this than those with a
university degree (95% CI: from 1.42 to 6.12) (²(1, N = 315) = 9.06, p = .003). While they
have chosen the option with the least upfront payment, it is likely to have the least amount of
returns over time and they may be unaware of potential billing periods. This indicates that
reliable information pertaining to payment options would aid in overcoming a potential
consumer’s perception of financial infeasibility.
4.4.4 Perception of Cost:
With regard to the respondents’ perception of initial cost of a high-quality, three or four
person-home PV system, 123 (38%) responded $5,000-$7,999, 118 (37%) said $2,000-$4,999,
58 (18%) indicated $8,000-$12,000, 13 (4%) responded more than $12,000, and 8 (3%) said less
than $2,000 (refer to Figure 17). The price ranges that we allotted in the survey make deeper
analysis nearly impossible. We were under the impression that the average system cost was
approximately $3,200, but in actuality, it typically ranges from $4,000-$6,000 depending on the
quality of the system, spanning over two answer choices. However, there were 71 respondents
who believed the cost to be greater than $8,000, an overestimation, which supports the finding
from installers about the lack of information and misinformation of PV. Consumers with this
perception could potentially overcome the initial cost barrier if they were aware of the actual
54
pricing. There was no statistically significant difference between perception of cost and any of
our demographic categorisations.
Figure 17. Perception of PV System Cost
4.4.5 Greatest Gain from Owning a PV System
In response to what our respondents hoped their greatest gain would be from installing a
system, 187 (58%) said to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emission (GHGE) and 108
(34%) would be most satisfied by saving money on their power bill. Additionally, 8% responded
to take advantage of the low system cost, increase dwelling value, or other, which is relatively
small in comparison (refer to Figure 18). MEFL and Positive Charge can note from this that
members of the community are primarily concerned with improving their GHGE in order to
protect the environment, but the survey sample is likely biased toward residents that are already
environmentally conscious because they are members of MEFL’s e-Bulletin and their previous
Zero Carbon Moreland project. There was no statistically significant difference between greatest
gain of owning a PV system and any of our demographic categorisations.
38%
37%
18%
4% 3% $5,000-$7,999
$2,000-$4,999
$8,000-$12,000
More than$12,000
Less than $2,000
55
Figure 18. Greatest Gain from Owning a System
4.4.6 Preferred Source of Information
With regard to what information source would be the most influential in encouraging
them to install PV, 143 (46%) ranked trusted not-for-profit (NFP) organisations as their preferred
source, 86 (28%) said they preferred recommendations from family or friends, 48 (15%) chose
case studies on the advantages/disadvantages of installing, and 31 (10%) indicated home visits
from energy experts (refer to Figure 19). Other responses were social media, and contact from
PV installers, but their results were small in comparison, accounting for 1% all together. MEFL
and Positive Charge can note that members of the community will support their efforts as a not-
for-profit organization, although the survey sample is likely biased toward residents that support
MEFL’s activities already.
Figure 19. Most Preferred Information Sources on PV Installation
58%
34%
4%3% 1% Reduce personal
greenhouse gasemissions
Save money on powerbill
Take advantage of thelow system cost
Other
Increase dwelling'svalue
46%
28%
16%
10%
Trusted not-for-profitorganisations (such asMEFL or Positive Charge)Recommendations fromfamily or friends
Case studies on theadvantages/disadvantagesof installingHome visit andrecommendation by energyexperts
56
We found a statistically significant relationship between preferred information source and
income, mortgage, and homeownership.
While 10% indicated home visits and recommendations by energy experts as their
primary choice, this response was 2.7 times more likely to be the first choice for respondents
with high incomes compared to those with lower incomes (95% CI: 1.22 to 6.12) (²(1, N = 258)
= 6.38, p = .012). Households with higher income have more money to invest, but are also more
conscious of where and how they invest their money. Their ability to invest depends on a range
of financial responsibilities such as mortgages dependents. To overcome this barrier, Positive
Charge needs to ensure high-income households of their credibility of information to bridge the
informational gaps for all ranges of economic standing.
Respondents who currently own their home, but do not pay a mortgage are 2.0 times
more likely to choose recommendations from family or friends than homeowners paying a
mortgage (95% CI: from 1.13 to 3.61) (²(1, N = 232) = 5.71, p = .017). Homeowners without a
mortgage are more likely to be older (86.5% of respondents without a mortgage are 45+). Older
age groups are more likely to rely on word-of-mouth recommendations instead of utilising case
studies or other information about PV that can be found on the Internet. These individuals
already trust family and friends, indicating that public events promoting PV from neighbouring
PV homeowners would be a viable way to increase their potential for PV adoption.
When comparing homeowners vs. renters, renters are 1.9 times more likely to rank case
studies as their preferred information source (95% CI: from 1.02 to 3.83) (²(1, N = 307) = 4.14,
p = .042). As indicated through our PV installer interviews and renter-installed PV owners, the
process to install a PV system on a rented dwelling is a much different process than that for
homeowners. If an agreement between the landlords and tenants could be formulated, both of
these parties could profit from the installation of PV.
4.4.7 Comparisons to Previous Studies:
We compared our online survey results of non-PV homeowners, with our PV homeowner
surveys and CSIRO’s Australian householders’ interest in the distributed energy market report,
from October, 2013, in order to compare answers from non-PV owners to those of PV owners.
Not all three surveys addressed the same questions and had slightly different answer choices, but
we were able to draw connections between primary reasons for installation and payment
preferences.
57
In contrast to CSIRO’s report of 70% of responses, 47 % of our surveyed PV households
and 34% of our online survey respondents indicated that their primary reason for installation is
or would be to save money on their power bill. Our online survey results could be more swayed
to have environmental reasons for installation because they are a potentially biased sample from
MEFL members that are more environmentally conscious. This three-way comparison is shown
in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Comparison between Literature and Our Results
Supported by CSIRO’s report, the majority of our online responses (37%) indicated that
they would prefer to fully pay for their system upfront. Additionally, the second most preferred
option was to utilise a form of financing (i.e. low financing option with a deposit, or a zero-down
deposit, low financing option) with 32% of responses, collectively.
70%
47%34%
12%
44%58%
4%
9%11%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CSIRO's Australian Householders’ Interest in the
Distributed Energy Market
WPI PVHomeowner
Survey
WPI Non-PVHomeowners
Survey
Other
Increase dwelling's value
Take advantage of the lowsystem cost
To benefit from thegovernment rebates
To be less reliant on energyretailers
To reduce my householdcarbon emissions
To save money on my powerbill
58
Chapter 5: Conclusions & Recommendations
Overall, the potential for PV capacity in this area is fairly high, as Moreland could
potentially offset 91% of the electricity consumed in residential dwellings. However, we
determined that there are various barriers for the PV market in the Moreland community that are
currently withholding it from reaching its potential uptake. We found five main areas for
improvement to increase uptake: regulations for landlords, educating owners of multi-unit
dwellings, overcoming the financial and knowledge barrier, and promoting uptake through
community engagement. We have addressed each of these conditions and proposed solutions to
overcome them in order to stimulate the market and help Moreland reduce its overall greenhouse
gas emissions.
5.1 Regulatory Barrier on Rented Dwellings
From our findings, we conclude that there is a large potential capacity for PV uptake in
dwellings in Moreland that are rented. Rented dwellings make up 31% of all dwellings in
Moreland, and thus have a large share of its overall electricity usage. Renters are significantly
more likely than homeowners to say the primary reason for not installing a system is that they
“do not plan to stay in the dwelling for an extended period of time,” so it is not profitable for
them to pay for a PV system. Therefore, it is not a reasonable idea to target renters for the
adoption of PV systems on the dwellings they inhabit. Instead, it would be much more feasible to
target the landlords of the dwellings, since they have the opportunity to profit from the PV
system.
Currently, there is no mandatory disclosure of energy ratings for rental properties. This is
preventing landlords from being publically acknowledged for improving the energy performance
of their rental property their dwelling. It becomes harder for them to increase the cost of rent
because of this, even though the tenant could benefit financially by savings on their electricity
bills.
Recommendation #1.
It is important that MEFL supports and helps to create a regulation to have a
mandatory disclosure of energy ratings for rental properties to ensure that renters understand
there is an opportunity to save money on electricity bills on buildings with PV installed.
59
If this can be accomplished, we recommend MEFL to educate landlords on how they
can benefit economically from installing a PV system on their dwelling. If the landlord
purchases a system, they could charge an individual more for their rent by justifying that the
tenant will be making up the money through savings in their energy bills.
5.2 Multi-Unit Dwellings
Single storey and multi-storey unit dwellings face different barriers than fully detached
dwellings. People in this situation may not even know it is possible to install solar on their roof
due to a lack of information on the installation process for unit-type dwellings. First, the owner
must determine if there is enough roof space for the system. For multi-storey dwellings, the roof
is evenly split up to each of the units directly under it. The owner must provide the Owners’
Corporation with background information on the process and potential risks; following this, they
must get majority approval from the Owners’ Corporation through a paper ballot. Additionally,
they have to accept responsibility for any damages done to the roof by the system, or pay to
remove the system if necessary.
The overall process can take substantially longer than if a homeowner installed on a fully
detached dwelling, due to the difficulty of ensuring an entire Owners’ Corporation of its benefits
and informing them of the process and risks.
Recommendation #2. We recommend that MEFL educates Owners’ Corporations of multi-
unit dwellings to aid in providing awareness of the process and feasibility of installing solar.
We suggest that MEFL primarily focuses on apartment dwellings that are at most 3
storeys, because there is likely to be less roof space for the taller apartment blocks. It also
becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive to install on higher rooftops, as the installer
must utilise alternative methods for installation.
We suggest that MEFL focuses on apartment-type dwellings that are smaller in terms of
the number of total units. This improves the level of ease for the interested owner to inform the
whole Owners’ Corporation and get majority approval.
5.3 Financial Barrier
Through our survey of non-PV households and installer interviews, we determined that the
initial cost of a system is one of the main barriers preventing individuals from installing solar
PV; 41% of our non-PV household survey respondents ranked initial cost as their greatest reason
60
for not installing. There is a misconception of the initial cost of PV systems, as 22% of
respondents in this survey greatly overestimated the price of a solar power system on an average
family’s dwellings. This overestimation could contribute to the potential consumer’s perception
of the return on investment of PV being longer than it actually is, as mentioned in the installer
interviews. Additionally, 25% of respondents do not have enough information about payment
options and thus need to be made more aware of alternatives to paying the large upfront capital.
Recommendation #3. We recommend MEFL to educate individuals on the various payment
options available for solar PV.
We suggest that MEFL further emphasizes the education of communities with higher
percentages of people with mortgages, because people with mortgages are significantly more
likely than people without mortgages to not have enough information on the various financial
options. These individuals also have additional overhead costs, so they may be more inclined to
take advantage of a financial option if they were made aware of them. Approximately 30% of
Moreland residents with a private dwelling have a mortgage.
We suggest that MEFL educates communities on the financial options in areas with
more schools, since parents are significantly more likely than non-parents to have initial cost as
the greatest reason discouraging them from installing solar PV. Overall, around 60% of
Moreland households consists of parents.
5.4 Consumer Knowledge Barrier
One installer believed that most homeowners prefer to have all of their decisions about
installing PV done for them, including: sizing, financing, and determining the ROI. Through our
online survey, we determined that the majority of individuals ranked not-for-profit organisations
as the most influential at encouraging them to install PV. Organisations such as Positive Charge
have the potential to influence an individual’s decision to purchase PV for two reasons: they are
more trusted than other means of communication, such as solar installation companies and social
media; and they provide the individual with information they need to purchase PV, or provide
them with trusted contact for further assistance.
Recommendation #4: We recommend that MEFL creates an interactive webpage showing
potential savings a homeowner can make through purchasing PV.
61
This tool could also be used to determine an appropriate sized system that can be
determined by various variables, such as the number of individuals in the house, average energy
consumption, standard times they are home, and number of high-energy appliances. We believe
that the majority of the potential PV homeowners would respond well to a user-friendly online
tool to help calculate future savings if an investment in PV is made.
The calculation page would also incorporate financing options, incentives, and
current cost of electricity, in order to improve financial awareness. This allows the user to
determine what system size and financing plan would be most feasible for their situation. By
providing the savings a PV system has to offer, as well as noting upfront costs, to future PV
homeowners, this webpage could help make initial investments for PV easier to understand.
5.5 Community Engagement
The installers indicated that the ideal customers for PV uptake are either retirees or young
families. They indicated retirees, because generally they do not have many additional financial
liabilities so they can be more receptive to the idea of investing their money in PV.
The majority of respondents who currently own their home and do not pay a mortgage
fall into the older age group. These individuals are also significantly more likely than individuals
paying a mortgage, who are generally younger, to choose recommendations from family or
friends as their most influential source of information to purchase PV.
Installers suggested young families because they are likely concerned about rising
electricity prices in the future, especially due to the significant increase over the past few years.
With PV systems, young families will ease the financial stress of high electricity bills, especially
with the additional energy used by their children.
Recommendation #5: We recommend that MEFL promotes PV adoption to older individuals
who do not have a mortgage through word-of-mouth recommendations and marketing.
Since these individuals are older, they may be less tech-savvy than younger members of
the community. Because of this, they are more likely to stick to word-of-mouth
recommendations instead of utilising case studies or other information about PV that can be
found on the Internet. These individuals already trust family and friends, indicating that
community events where PV homeowners provide personal testimonials about uptake to
62
their neighbours and friends would be a viable way to increase the potential for PV adoption to
older individuals who are not paying a mortgage.
Recommendation #6: We recommend that MEFL hosts family-friendly community events to
promote PV uptake to younger families.
One of the installers specifically mentioned that a great way to reach young families is
through school fundraisers. These fundraisers help raise money to put PV on schools while also
offering incentives to the homeowners of the children attending these schools. By promoting
solar PV to young families, children will also be exposed to pro-environmental behaviours,
which could be beneficial to the future PV market as the children grow into independent adults
and future homeowners.
5.6 Limitations of Our Study, Potential Uses of the Recommendations, and Areas
for Future Expansion
5.6.1 Limitations of Our Study:
We recognize that our study has various limitations, which are explained as follows:
1. Our project only determined the carrying capacity of three postcodes in Moreland. It might
be useful to measure a few more postcodes to determine to see if the estimated total capacity
in Moreland was reasonably scaled or if further measurements need to be considered for an
accurate calculation.
2. The online survey that was sent out to non-PV households had various limitations for the
demographic comparisons due to the small count in particular categories. Some of the noted
results that are statistically significant have a wide-ranging confidence interval, indicating
some uncertainty in that area caused by the low counts. Examples of demographics where
low counts were evident are parenthood for initial cost as reason not to install, and age for
upfront payment options. If another similar survey were conducted, it would be useful to
analyse whether our statistically significant findings are reproduced.
3. If substantial PV uptake occurred in the Moreland area, it would become important to
determine the potential grid capacity, as this is likely a limiting factor if the grid can
withstand the energy produced.
63
5.6.2 Use of Our Recommendations:
We created our recommendations for use by MEFL and organisations looking to promote
solar PV uptake within municipalities similar to Moreland. If our recommendations are
considered, we are hoping to see the following improvements to the Moreland PV market:
More landlords installing PV systems on rented residential buildings and a
regulation on mandatory disclosure of energy ratings on rented dwellings;
Greater awareness and uptake of solar PV on multi-unit dwellings;
Improved understanding of financing options when making the initial investment in
residential solar PV; and
An overall improved community awareness of the potential to offset residential
consumption by roughly 90% using residential solar PV systems within Moreland.
5.6.3 Areas for Future Expansion:
To expand our project, further research could be conducted to determine the consumers’
perception of the ROI for PV and whether this is a substantial factor discouraging consumers
from adopting PV. These findings would provide a better understanding as to whether current
advertising schemes are reflecting the ROI in a positive light.
Areas of future research could also look at the real estate market to see if the installation
of PV systems is having a substantial effect on the costs and sales of houses. Additionally, it
would be important to determine the main reasons why some builders have been installing PV
systems on new residential dwellings, while others have not.
Finally, a future study could be conducted to see if the recommendations outlined within
this report have significantly improved the solar PV market within Moreland. While our results
suggest that there is a high potential for uptake in Moreland, this future study could solidify our
recommendations and facilitate communities around the globe who are also looking to improve
the uptake of residential solar PV.
64
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011 Census QuickStats: Melbourne. Census. Retrieved Nov.12,
2013, from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au
Allen, A. (2013). Drivers of Domestic PV Uptake: Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Retrieved from http://www.acilallen.com.au
ARENA. (2013). Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2013, from
http://www.arena.gov.au/about/index.html
Bollinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels.
Marketing Science, 31(6), 900-912.
Brazzale, R. (2013). Hunt's rebate can stop solar's slide. Retrieved from
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/20/policy-politics/hunts-rebate-can-
stop-solars-slide
Bretherton, M. (2013). Australia makes its first solar power million. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2013,
from http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au
Bryant, L., & Eves, C. (2012). Home sustainability policy and mandatory disclosure: A survey of
buyer and seller participation and awareness in Qld. Property Management, 30(1), 29-51.
Retrieved from Emerald database (10.1108/02637471211198161).
Building Integrated Photovoltaics. (2010, December 13). M2 Presswire. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.wpi.edu
Department of the Environment. (2013). Renewable Energy Target. Climatechange.gov.au.
Retrieved from http://www.climatechange.gov.au
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. (2012). Energy White Paper. Retrieved from
http://www.ret.gov.au
Department of State Development Business and Innovation. (2013). Victorian Feed-in Tariff
Schemes. Retrieved from Energy and Earth Resources
http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au
Energy Matters. (2013). Go Solar: Zero Deposit: Offset Your Air-Conditioning Bill. Retrieved
Oct. 7, 2013, from http://www.energymatters.com.au
Faiers, A., & Neame, C. (2006). Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems.
Energy Policy, 34(14), 1797-1806. doi:10.1016/jecp.2005.01.001.
65
Feldman, D., Barbose, G., Margolis, R., Wiser, R., Darghouth, N., & Goodrich, A. (2012).
Photovoltaic (PV) Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near-Term Projections:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov
Grigoleit, T., Rothacher, T., & Ouw, M. (2013). Industry Overview: The Photovoltaic Market in
Germany. Retrieved from http://www.gtai.de
Haas, R. (2002). Market deployment strategies for PV systems in the built environment: An
evaluation of Incentives, Support Programmes and Marketing Activities. Retrieved from
http://apache.solarch.ch
Havas, L., Latz, S., Lawes, M., Penna, C., & Race, D. (2012). Analysis of a residential rooftop
photovoltaic trial in Alice Springs. Australian Solar Energy Society. Retrieved from
http://www.solar.org.au
Jones, G., & Bouamane, L. (2012, May 25). "Power from Sunshine": A Business History of Solar
Energy. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu
King, D. (2011). Residential Mandatory Disclosure: The Facts for Victoria. Green Moves
Australia. Retrieved from http://www.greenmoves.com.au
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,
8(3), 239-260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145447
Lüthi, S. (2010). Effective deployment of photovoltaics in the Mediterranean countries:
Balancing policy risk and return. Solar Energy, 84(6), 1059-1071. doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2010.03.014
Martin, J. (2013, May 16). Is a solar leasing program right for you? Message posted to
http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/is-a-solar-leasing-program-right-for-you/
Mikulina, J. T. (2007). Sunrise For Solar: The Adoption Of Grid-Connected Residential
Photovoltaic Energy On The Island Of O‘Ahu. Retrieved from
https://blueplanetfoundation.org
Moreland City Council. (2013). City of Moreland Profile. Retrieved from
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/home.html
Moreland Energy Foundation. (2012a). Delivering Clean Energy Solutions, Business Report.
Brunswick, VIC: Author.
66
Moreland Energy Foundation. (2013). Moreland Energy Foundation. Retrieved September 16,
2013 from http://www.mefl.com.au
Moreland Energy Foundation. (2012b). Moreland Solar City 2008-2012: Community action on
climate change. Retrieved from http://www.mefl.com.au
Moreland Energy Foundation. (2010). Strategic Plan 2010-2015: An active, inspired community
tackling climate change with sustainable energy solutions. Retrieved from
http://www.mefl.com.au
Moreland Energy Foundation. (2012c). Year in Review 2011-2012: Moreland Energy
Foundation Limited. Retrieved from http://www.mefl.com.au
Mortarino, C., & Guidolin, M. (2010). Cross-country diffusion of photovoltaic systems:
modelling choices and forecasts for national adoption patterns. Technological forecasting
& social change, 77(2), 279-296. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.003
Noone, B. (2013). PV Integration on Australian Distributed Networks. Retrieved from
http://apvi.org.au
Parkinson, G. (2013, August 15). Why Australian rooftop solar PV prices are cheaper. Message
posted to http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-australian-rooftop-solar-pv-prices-are-
cheaper-98991
Peacock, F. (2013). Hunt's dumb solar rebate. Retrieved from
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/19/solar-energy/hunts-dumb-solar-
rebate
Platzer, M. (2013, June 7). U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global
Competition, Federal Support. Retrieved from http://blogs.usembassy.gov
Positive Charge. (2013a). Positive Charge. Retrieved September 16, 2013 from
http://www.positivecharge.com.au/index.html
Positive Charge. (2013b). Positive Charge Experience Survey. Brunswick, VIC: Author.
Post, W. (2012, January 16). Facts About The German EEG Program: The Energy Collective.
Message posted to http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/74311/german-eeg-
program
Pulsford, S. (2012). Climate Based PV System Performance & Reliability. Retrieved from
http://www.cleanenergyweek.com.au
67
Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Conner, M., Adjali, I., Hurling, R., Sengupta, A., et al. (2012). To
reduce and not to reduce resource consumption? That is two questions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 112-122. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.01.003
Romanach, L., & Ashworth, P. (2013 ). Australian householders’ interest in the distributed
energy market Pullenvale. Retrieved from http://www.csiro.au
Sandeman, J. (2010). Feed-In Tariffs: Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy.
International Journal of Environmental Studies, 67(3), 463-463. doi:
10.1080/00207230701737011
Sungevity Australia. (2013). How much will I save on energy?. Sungevity. Retrieved Oct. 7,
2013, from http://www.sungevity.com.au/how-much-will-i-save
Thompson, B. (2013). Charging-up community action. Climate Spectator. Retrieved from
http://www.businessspectator.com.au
Tyagi, V. V., Rahim, N. A. A., Rahim, N. A., & Selvaraj, J. A. L. (2013). Progress in solar PV
technology: Research and achievement. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
20(0), 443-461. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.028
Vorrath, S. (2013). Solar milestone: 1,000,000 PV systems installed in Australia. Renew
Economy Australia. Retrieved from http://www.reneweconomy.com.au
Watt, M. (2012). Australian PV Report 2012 Executive Summary. Retrieved from
http://apvi.org.au
Watt, M. (2011). PV in Australia 2011. Retrieved from http://www.solarconference.com.au
Whittles. (2013). Going Solar in Strata. Retrieved from http://www.whittles.com.au
68
Appendix 1 Sponsor Description
The Moreland Energy Foundation Ltd (MEFL) was founded in December 2000 by the
Moreland City Council to promote local energy sustainability. The Council created this not-for-
profit foundation in response to growing concerns about the electricity production and
consumption following restructuring of the Victorian electrical industry. Its funds came from the
sales of local electricity assets after Victorian electricity was privatised and the council-owned
Brunswick Electricity Supply Department was sold in the mid 1990’s (MEFL, 2013).
Until relatively recently, MEFL was unique among local government groups in Victoria,
with its emphasis on and expertise in sustainable energy. As the leading foundation within
Victoria, they have played a prominent role in the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action
(NAGA) and serve as an example for nascent groups with a similar passion for sustainable
living, such as the Yarra Energy Foundation. Overall, MEFL is on the leading edge of
technology within the region, promoting further expansion as others follow their lead.
Over the past thirteen years, MEFL has worked with households, businesses, and
community groups in Moreland City to achieve its primary goal of "implementing [a] sustainable
energy supply and reducing energy use.” MEFL is dedicated to upholding the following five
core values: innovation, honesty, respect, resilience, and teamwork. By integrating their core
values, MEFL has declared their mission to "undertake community engagement, do research,
consult, provide professional development and advocate on energy efficiency, renewable
energy and related policy and planning issues" (MEFL, 2013). Their expertise and dedication to
promotion of green energy has made MEFL a leader within the field of reducing carbon
emission.
Building on the successes of the past years, MEFL has established a five year strategic
plan to be completed by 2015 to make Moreland “an active, inspired community tackling climate
change with sustainable energy solutions,” (MEFL, 2013). MEFL offers an extensive set of
programs within the community to minimize excessive energy waste, reduce energy bills with
practical and sustainable ideas, and develop low carbon alternatives. They offer "advice, training,
consultancy services, cheap and easy energy-saving tips, and consultation with government to
discuss options to make it easier for people to reduce energy use," (MEFL, 2013).
69
In recent years, MEFL's efforts have become more evident throughout the community as
they worked on numerous improvement projects. These include partnership with Sustainability
Victoria to improve existing Victorian homes' energy efficiency by:
Replacing halogen down lights;
Installing wall insulation;
Draught-proofing buildings; and,
Implementing regular energy efficiency testing.
MEFL relies primarily on government support for its funding. They receive their base
funding from the Council, and also collect substantial funding in the form of numerous federal,
state and local government grants. In 2012, they operated with a budget of $2.7 million, which
was primarily used for their Zero Carbon Moreland program. MEFL also receives funds through
membership for service activity and has attracted over $610,000 in dues. Members have the
ability to work with staff to “advocate for sustainable outcomes at a policy level and in [their]
own community” (MEFL, 2013). Table 11 describes the various membership options and their
prices.
Membership type 1 year 3 years
Individual $30 $80
Concession $15 $40
Family/Household $50 $140
Business/Community Organisation $60 $170
Table 11. Membership Options (MEFL, 2013)
From 2008-2012, MEFL received considerable funding through the Moreland Solar City
Project, which began through a solar city grant provided by the federal government. The
Australian Government’s Solar Cities program was designed to “trial new sustainable models for
electricity supply and use,” and Moreland was selected as one of seven Solar Cities for this
program (MEFL, 2012b). Moreland Solar City consisted of four projects streams, including:
Zero Carbon Moreland (reducing existing energy use of residents, community
groups and businesses);
70
Zero Carbon Moreland Concession Assist (helping low-income households
become more energy efficient);
Moreland Energy Partnerships (transforming the way Moreland generates energy
into more of a focus on renewable energy); and,
Sustainable Urban Planning (working with commercial developers to produce
effective tools to incorporate sustainability into new precincts).
Through this $10 million project, MEFL assisted over 1,000 low income households with
the help of 4,000 volunteers and businesses.
MEFL partners with numerous local organizations to achieve its goals. For example,
MEFL is collaborating with Climate Action Moreland on a community funded solar project to
build a medium scale solar photovoltaic (PV) array. Climate Action Moreland also stages
protests and rallies to show that there is a large support within the community to pressure
political leaders into taking action against climate change. The recent interest in a sustainable
future has led to the development of a new MEFL initiative, Positive Charge. The primary goal
of Positive Charge is to combat rising energy costs by making energy saving easier for local
residents and businesses. Through this initiative, energy conservation experts conduct research
and provide information to the public to promote conservation. Additionally, Positive Charge
sells energy efficient products, such as PV panels, insulation, LED lights, and electric bicycles.
Through this and similar efforts, MEFL hopes to raise awareness and encourage more people to
adopt energy saving strategies and promote greater environmental sustainability (Positive
Charge, 2013a).
MEFL has twenty-five full-time, part-time, and casual employees, as well as fifty
volunteers and eight interns and is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of ten members
drawn from the organization and local community (Figure 21) (Moreland Energy Foundation
LTD, 2013). The Board includes the Chief Executive Officer, Paul Murfitt, Secretary, Ian
Thomas, and Chair, Monique Conheady. In addition there are four general members, a
community representative member, and two nominees from the Moreland City Council. There
are three subcommittees under the board which are composed of elected members with particular
skills and an interest in MEFL’s work (Moreland Energy Foundation). The Community and
Stakeholder Engagement Committee promote the communication and cooperation of the
Moreland community stakeholders with MEFL. The Performance Assessment Committee
71
oversees the CEO’s work and helps to appoint a new one in the event of a vacancy. The Business
Sustainability and Risk Committee, on which Chair Monique Conheady serves, has the
responsibility of overseeing risk management strategies and modifying them when necessary,
advising the board when business development opportunities are available, and also monitoring
several of MEFL’s projects. Figure 22 shows how the board oversees the activities of MEFL
through its subcommittees. Reports on the organization’s activities and progress are published
annually in their yearly review (MEFL, 2012c).
Figure 21. MEFL Hierarchy of Organisational Bodies (MEFL, 2013).
MEFL has programs in many parts of Australia, but 90% of its funds are spent in Victoria
and 56% focus on Moreland in particular. MEFL runs operations in the city of Moreland, which
is located north of Melbourne and includes the suburbs shown in Figure 22. MEFL works in all
of the suburban areas within Moreland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote
sustainability.
72
Figure 22. Map of Moreland and surrounding areas ("City of Moreland profile - Moreland City
Council, Victoria, Australia," 2013)
Moreland is primarily a residential area with a population of 147,244 and 63,370 total
dwellings, in 2011. Moreland is a racially-mixed area with 34% of residents born overseas,
primarily from Italy, India, Greece, United Kingdom, Lebanon, and China. Forty-eight percent of
individuals in Moreland have an income of less than $600 per week and 36% of dwelling types
are in medium or high-density surroundings. These two statistics suggest that there are
significant areas of poverty in the Moreland area (Moreland, 2013).The median personal income
for the rest of Melbourne is $698 per week (Australian, 2011).
73
Appendix 2 Installer Interview Supporting Documents
Request for Correspondence
Subject: Interview with WPI Team from MEFL
Dear <insert interviewee name>,
I am writing to you on behalf of my project team. All four of us are third year students
studying engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, MA, USA. We are here in
Melbourne working with the Moreland Energy Foundation on a project to expand the solar PV
market into the next million homes. Our supervisor, Bruce Thompson at MEFL referred us to
you, thinking you would be a great contact for a brief interview. We hope that you will be able to
help us by answering a few questions about the local solar PV market and how to utilize
technology and software, such as Nearmap, to obtain estimates for usable roof-space for solar PV
installation.
We have prepared a list of questions for our brief interview and are hoping to set up a day
and time within the next week that works best for your schedule. You can contact me directly at
[email protected] to set up the interview. The group is very enthusiastic to speak with you,
either via phone or in person. Thanks for your time; we look forward to corresponding with you
soon.
Sincerely,
Liz Miller
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
B.S. Robotics Engineering 2015
74
Installer Interview Preamble
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. Our main objective in today’s
interview is to gain a better understanding of the factors affecting homeowners’ decisions to
install solar PV systems. Would you mind if we record our conversation today, or would you
prefer that we just take notes? Okay, let’s get started with the interview.
Installer Interview Questions
Below is a list of all of the installer interview questions that we used. Note that not all of
these questions were asked to each interviewee. Depending on the conversation, we would ask
the main questions (designated by numbers) and the sub-questions (designated by bullet points)
would help prompt and move the conversation along. We classified each of these questions
based on whether they were relevant to sales, client relations or technical interviewees. Refer to
Table 12 for a list of the questions pertaining to each classification.
1. Can you tell me more about what you do, about your job title and primary responsibility?
o Do you work more on the technical side, the sales, or client relations side of the
company?
o In what capacity do you interact with homeowners directly?
o Do you have a PV system installed? Why/Why not? What was your motivation
behind installing or not installing?
2. Have you thought about constraints of mapping out roof spaces (i.e. shading, useable roof
size)?
o What is the typical size of a solar system installed residentially?
o Are there any regulations for installing PV on apartment roofs? Who owns the roof?
3. Roughly, how many installations do you have per year? How many of these (%) are
residential vs. commercial/industrial?
4. Out of all of the last year of quotes that you did, approximately what percentage did you
actually go through the installation process with?
o What factors stop you from proceeding with a quote?
75
o What factors do you think influence a homeowner from stopping the installation
process?
5. Within Moreland, is there a target area that you are pitching more towards?
o Where in Moreland have you had the most residential systems installed within the
past 5 years? What drivers do you think contributes to this pattern of uptake?
o What are your drivers for a specific area?
o Where are some of the “hot areas” for sales?
6. How would you categorize the typical customer for a residential PV system?
o What kinds of suburbs: middle class, high-end do you find have typical installations?
o What kinds of people are purchasing these systems: young families, middle-aged, or
empty nesters?
7. What factors do homeowners consider when they are choosing a system?
o Is it mainly due to cost, energy consumption or roof space, or some other factor?
o What kinds of information do customers ask for when purchasing PV systems (i.e.
incentives, saving money, energy, environmental)?
8. How long is the full process from quoting to homeowners’ independently generating energy
from their system?
o Does the timeline or process effect a homeowner’s decision to purchase?
9. What is your company doing in order to attract new customers?
o (What is the most effective way to attract new customers?)
10. What do you think are the critical factors that need to change in order for solar power to be
more widely adopted?
o What do you think about government policies towards solar PV installation?
o How do you think the solar PV market has changed over the past 5 years?
76
Interviewee Job Title Sales Team Client Relations Technical
Category Socio-
demographical
Marketing Technical
Most Applicable Question
Numbers
1.
3.
4.
5.
8.
9.
10.
1.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
8.
10.
Table 12. Installer Interview Questions Sorted by Most Applicable Question to Respective
Interviewee and Category
Installer Interview Closing
Some of your quotes from our interview may be valuable for our report. Is it okay if we quote
you? We will plan to run all quotes by you and you can sign them off before they are used within
the report. A copy of our report can also be made available to you once completed, if you would
like to receive one. Thanks again for your time. Would we be able to follow up with you in the
future?
77
Appendix 3 Email to MEFL AGM Contacts
Dear <insert name here>,
We are the group of students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in the USA who met you at
MEFL’s AGM on October 29th. Paul Murfitt briefly introduced us and talked about our project to
increase the use of solar power systems within Moreland. We would greatly appreciate your help
as we begin surveying and interviewing people around the area. Your assistance can help us test
and further develop these two methods.
Do you own a solar power system?
If yes, would you be willing to talk with us on the phone for about 10 minutes at a time
convenient to you? Please let us know by email what would be a convenient time and number to
call.
If no, could you please take 5-10 minutes to fill out the anonymous survey at the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WPIStudentSurveyMEFL
Your responses will be very valuable for our research and MEFL’s future efforts. If you would
like to know more about our project, feel free to contact us by email or phone at 9385 8585.
Sincerely,
Tanishq, Alex, Liz, and Nick
78
Appendix 4 Email to “Pub Night” Contacts
Dear <insert name here>,
We are a group of students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in the USA and are currently
working on a project at the Moreland Energy Foundation to increase the use of solar power
systems within Moreland. You are being contacted because you have attended one of MEFL’s
Pub Nights in the past. We would greatly appreciate your help as we begin surveying and
interviewing people around the area. Your assistance can help us test and further develop these
two methods.
Do you own a solar power system?
If yes, would you be willing to talk with us on the phone for about 10 minutes at a time
convenient to you? Please let us know by email what would be a convenient time and number to
call.
If no, could you please take 5-10 minutes to fill out the anonymous survey at the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WPIStudentSurveyMEFL
Your responses will be very valuable for our research and MEFL’s future efforts. If you would
like to know more about our project, feel free to contact us by email or phone at 9385 8585.
Sincerely,
Tanishq, Alex, Liz, and Nick
79
Appendix 5 PV Homeowner Questions
1. May we ask you a few questions pertaining to your solar power system?
a. What size solar panels and inverter did you have installed? Why?
b. Approximately, when did you have your solar panels installed?
c. At the time of installation, how long had you owned your home for?
d. How long did the installation process take?
e. Did you pay for the system upfront or did you utilise a financing/leasing option?
Did you receive any incentives? What FiT scheme do you receive?
f. Have you experienced any performance or quality issues with your system?
g. Have you ever considered increasing the capacity of your system?
2. Can you tell me more about why you chose to install your solar panels?
a. What was your biggest motivation for installation?
b. Were there any barriers that you overcame before or during the installation
process? Or anything holding you back?
c. Have you noticed a change in your electricity bill since the installation? How
much have you been saving on your electricity bill?
d. What is the greatest satisfaction from owning your system? Have you
recommended solar panels to family or friends? How?
3. Has installing your solar power system made you more environmentally conscious?
a. Have you taken any “green” actions after the installation to improve your level of
sustainability? How has your electricity usage changed after installation?
b. Are you a member of any “green” groups? When did you become involved?
4. Socio-demographic information sheet:
Lastly, we would like to answer a few personal questions that will help in our
analysis, if you would not mind filling out this brief sheet. All information gathered
will remain anonymous. Feel free to omit any questions you prefer not to answer.
In closing:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. Your answers will be very helpful in our
study. We greatly appreciate your time and participation in our study.
80
Appendix 6 PV Homeowner Data Collection Sheet
Location
Dwelling Type
1. Questions about their PV
Size of solar panels and inverter
Installation date
Length of homeownership
Length of installation
Paid upfront or Financing
FiT Scheme / Incentives
Performance/Quality Issues
Increasing Capacity
2. Why installed?
Biggest Motivation
Barriers during installation
Change in electricity
bill/Savings/comparison
Greatest Satisfaction/recommendations
3. Environmentally Conscious
Green actions/Electricity usage
Green Groups
81
Appendix 7 Map of PV Households for Door-to-Door Surveying
Figure 23. Nearmap image of Pascoe Value Homes with Solar Panels Installed
82
Appendix 8 Email to Positive Charge Members with PV systems
Dear <insert homeowner name>,
We are contacting you because you recently purchased a solar power system through the Positive
Charge initiative, coordinated by the Moreland Energy Foundation (MEFL). We are a group of
third year undergraduate students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in the United
States. As part of our studies, we are doing a research project with MEFL, investigating ways to
improve the uptake of solar power systems in the Moreland area. Can you help us with our
project by participating in a brief phone survey? This should take only 10 minutes of your time.
Please be assured that this survey is for research purposes only, and has ethics approval from
WPI.
If you are able to help, could you please reply to this email, and include your phone
number and the best times for us to call you.
As a token of our appreciation, upon completion, you will be entered into a drawing for two
movie passes!
If you have any questions about our research, please feel free to contact Bruce Thompson from
MEFL on [email protected] (9385 8585), or our academic supervisors, Dr Andrea Bunting
([email protected]) or Dr Dominic Golding ([email protected])
We look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Alex MacGrogan, Liz Miller, Tanishq Bhalla, Nick Tosi
83
Appendix 9 PV Homeowner Preamble
Hello! We are students from a university in the United States. We would like start off by
saying that we are not selling anything, but are working in partnership with the Moreland Energy
Foundation to assess the future of solar power systems in Moreland. We noticed that you have
solar panels installed on your roof and would greatly appreciate a few minutes of your time to
partake in a brief survey that will be used to develop recommendations for MEFL to improve
local uptake of solar power systems. If you choose to participate, as a token of our appreciation,
you will be entered into a drawing for two movie passes. Are you currently available for
discussion? If not, we can contact you later for an over-the-phone (9385 8585) survey, if that
suits you better. All information will be kept entirely anonymous and you may omit any
questions if you so choose. May we begin?
84
Appendix 10 Letter to Absentee Homeowners
Dear Homeowner,
We are a group of students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), in the United
States. We would like to start by saying that we are not trying to sell anything! We are currently
working in accordance with the Moreland Energy Foundation Ltd. (MEFL) in order to improve
solar power system uptake within Moreland and have noticed that you have a solar power system
installed. We have developed a brief set of questions to assess information from homeowners
that will be valuable to our study. If you would be willing to partake in the study, we would
greatly appreciate your time. Per your request, we can either conduct a phone interview. If you
are willing to be a part of our study, we can be contacted either by email ([email protected]) or
by phone (9385 8585) to coordinate the best time to talk. If you would prefer an online survey,
the link is: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PVStudentSurvey.
Your time and participation is greatly appreciated and we look forward to hearing from
you in the near future.
Sincerely,
The WPI Team (Tanishq Bhalla, Alex MacGrogan, Liz Miller, and Nick Tosi)
85
Appendix 11 Socio-Demographics Chart
86
Appendix 12 Online Survey of Households without Solar Power Systems
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix 13 Email to MEFL/ZCM Subscribers for Non-PV Household Survey
92
Appendix 14 Mapping Calculations
Brunswick Results
kW per House North 1.13
kW per House East 1.48
kW per House West 1.55
Without Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 2.85
post Code kW 26462.40
kWh per House per Day 9.28
kWh per House per Year 3388.94
Total postcode MWh per Day 86348.37
Total postcode GWh per Year 31.52
With Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 2.67
post Code kW 12159.70
kWh per House per Day 8.72
kWh per House per Year 3181.55
Total postcode MWh per Day 39677.82
Total postcode GWh per Year 14.48 Table 13. Brunswick Carrying Capacity Calculation Results
Pascoe Vale Results
kW per House North 2.09
kW per House East 1.71
kW per House West 1.75
Without Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 4.08
post Code kW 23924.38
kWh per House per Day 13.50
kWh per House per Year 4927.43
Total postcode MWh per Day 79162.85
Total postcode GWh per Year 28.89
With Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 3.58
post Code kW 14260.34
kWh per House per Day 11.86
kWh per House per Year 4329.51
Total postcode MWh per Day 47185.72
Total postcode GWh per Year 17.22
93
Table 14. Pascoe Vale Carrying Capacity Calculation Results
Fawkner Results
kW per House North 1.76
kW per House East 1.52
kW per House West 1.26
Without Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 3.59
post Code kW 15328.84
kWh per House per Day 11.93
kWh per House per Year 4356.03
Total postcode MWh per Day 50911.83
Total postcode GWh per Year 18.58
With Restrictions
Avg. kW per House 3.47
post Code kW 10789.72
kWh per House per Day 11.52
kWh per House per Year 4203.13
Total postcode MWh per Day 35835.98
Total postcode GWh per Year 13.08
Table 15. Fawkner Carrying Capacity Calculation Results
Moreland Census Data
Total Population 52484
Applicable Dwellings 32577
Percentage to total Moreland Dwellings
Brunswick 0.4786
Pascoe Vale 0.3018
Fawkner 0.2196
Applicable Dwellings Percentage to Applicable Moreland Dwellings
Brunswick 0.391
Pascoe Vale 0.342
Fawkner 0.267
Table 16. Moreland Census Data Used to Weight Data from Each Postcode
94
Moreland Results Without Restrictions
kW per House North 1.56
kW per House East 1.5590
kW per House West 1.5475
Moreland MW North 81.7
Moreland MW East 81.825
Moreland MW West 81.217
Avg. kW per House 3.38
Moreland MW Capacity 177.51
kWh per House per Day 11.23
kWh per House per Year 4100.13
Total Moreland GWh per Day 0.59
Total Moreland GWh per Year 215.19
With Restrictions
kW per House North 1.63
kW per House East 1.5700
kW per House West 1.5412
Moreland MW North 53.0
Moreland MW East 51.146
Moreland MW West 50.208
Avg. kW per House 3.20
Moreland MW Capacity 104.12
kWh per House per Day 10.62
kWh per House per Year 3874.64
Total Moreland MWh per Day 0.35
Total Moreland GWh per Year 126.22
Table 17. Moreland Full Carrying Capacity Results
95
Dwellings % Non-Rented
Heritage Overlay Homes
Applicable Dwellings
Verification #1: Postcode Groups kW WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS
Verification #2: Postcode Groups kW WITH RESTRICTIONS
Gowanbrae 965.00 0.748 34.24 687 0.075 0.075
Brunswick East 3585.00 0.549 127.19 1840 0.194 0.161
Oak Park 2152.00 0.777 76.35 1595 0.167 0.176
Pascoe Vale South 337.00 0.805 11.96 259 0.026 0.298
Brunswick* 9300.00 0.525 329.94 4552 0.504 0.373
Coburg 9116.00 0.696 323.41 6021 0.624 0.641
Coburg North 2408.00 0.709 85.43 1621 0.165 0.173
Brunswick West 5564.00 0.546 197.40 2840 0.302 0.234
Pascoe Vale* 5864.00 0.714 208.04 3978 0.456 0.438
Hadfield 1915.00 0.777 67.94 1420 0.149 0.156
Glenroy 7012.00 0.699 248.77 4652 0.480 0.495
Fawkner* 4266.00 0.765 151.35 3112 0.292 0.331
Total 52484 69.25% 1862 32577 3.43 3.55
*Measured Postcodes Error 2% 11% Table 18. Moreland Dwellings Breakdown by Postcode and Results of Verification Tests 1 and 2
96
Appendix 15 Example Demographic Tabulation
Main Reason for not Installing High Income Low Income
Initial Cost 37 62
Other Responses 69 88
Table 19. Tabulation of Main Reason for not Installing vs. Income Comparison
97
Appendix 16 Tabulated Online Survey Results
![Tanishq Ppt Repaired]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/546c3035b4af9f40358b4653/tanishq-ppt-repaired.jpg)
